Managing your money can be difficult, especially if you’re living paycheck to paycheck and having difficulty paying down your debt. So what are the five basics of money management? And how can they help you?

The First Basic Rule – Know What You have

One of the first steps to building a stable foundation for your financial life is understanding what you have. That means assets, income streams, and debts. This means you need to build a budget.

You should write down the income you received over the past few months, and average it out. Then you’ll want to take a look at what you’re spending every month, these are your expenses and they should be categorized based on your level of need. Rent should be listed as your number one need; this is because it’s one of the most difficult expenses to actually reduce.

Utilities are number 2, they’re also important, but you could probably stand to reduce your expenditure without impacting your quality of life too greatly. Then start moving line-by-line, and figuring out what you need and what you don’t. You should also take note of any debts you have, including their interest rates, and any information about penalties that may apply if you fail to make payments.

Once you’re well aware of what you have, it’s time to move on to step two.

The Second Basic Rule – Cutting Costs

Cutting costs in your life can be a difficult thing at first. Purchases often seem necessary at first, but in retrospect, you might find there were other options you could’ve considered. One such case of this can be found at the grocery store.

When you’re filling up your cart, what are you filling it up with? And I don’t mean what specific items. I mean what brands? What’s the price per ounce? Are you buying in bulk? Did you spend extra on something you could’ve got a dollar cheaper at another store with a coupon? You don’t have to get incredibly granular, but putting some extra thought into your purchases, and paying attention to details on the price tags, can save you a lot of money over time.

And, allow you to either start building up savings or start chipping away at your debts. You could also consider turning the A/C up 2 degrees in the summer, or turning the heater down the same amount during the winter, as your A/C bill can take up a substantial portion of your electricity costs.

The Third Basic Rule – Only Take Loans that Increase Your Ability to Make Money

Loans. To most people, they look like a one-way ticket to debt and obligation. And for most consumers, that’s true. Businesses and the rich, however, see it differently. For them, loans are a way to leverage their future earnings in a way that allows them to increase their profits in the future.

So how does this apply to you? Well, let’s think of a few examples of “Good Loans”. A mortgage, it’s a loan you take out for a place to live. While you slowly pay down your debt, you have access to a living space that allows you to perform the daily functions needed to hold down a job. You sleep there, you shower there you keep your valuables there. So as long as the mortgage terms are good and don’t exceed your means, this type of loan increases your ability to earn an income.

Another example is car loans.

If you’ve ever been poor, you’ve likely driven a car that cost at most $1500. And you know exactly how reliable those are. While a $15,000 dollar vehicle might cost a lot more, and put you in a lot of debt, over the long run, you’ll have a vehicle that is far more reliable.

That means fewer trips to the mechanic, less time missing work, and likely an increased fuel economy over the 15 or 20-year-old scrapheap you’re used to driving.

While taking on any large loan like that is a big decision, and requires a lot of research, there are ways to leverage your future earnings potential to increase your ability to earn.

The Fourth Basic Rule – Pay Down Your Most Expensive Debt First

One of the main topics in Dave Ramsey’s book, which you can learn more about the 7 Baby Steps from Bills.com, paying down your most expensive debt first can help you massively.

What does that mean exactly? Say you have one debt that totals $1000 dollars, and another that’s only $100 dollars, which debt is more expensive? If you said, “There’s not enough information to know”, congratulations, you’re correct! What’s important to know is the interest rate on that debt, the fees associated with it, and how often the debt is compounded.

Say you have $100 of credit card debt, and missing a payment activates a late fee of $35 every month, with 2% interest on top of it all. This debt should take precedence over, say, a $1000 dollar debt with 3.5% interest, but a 3-month grace period on late fees. By focusing on the debt that costs more over time, you lessen both your current and future financial obligations, and it helps you achieve your goal of debt elimination far quicker.

The Fifth Basic Rule – Spend Money to Make Money

Saving for retirement can be one of the biggest hurdles in your financial life, but the sooner you’re capable of doing so, the better. While saving for retirement can be difficult as you’re only beginning to establish yourself in the modern world, getting money into an investment account, like a mutual fund, can be a great way to start accruing that wealth.

The goal for savings should be 20% of your income, but we all fall short sometimes. So any amount is better than nothing. If you have access to an employer-sponsored 401k, that should be one of your first choices, especially in the case that they match your investments, as that doubles your starting capital. However you end up getting there, you’ll be glad you asked, “What are the five basics of money management?”.

 

The post What are The Five Basics of Money Management? appeared first on Granite Grok.

To the members of the North Hampton School Board: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on the important matter of the Seacoast Outright training for teachers in SAU21.

Since I was unable to present all of my testimony because of the time limit, I am enclosing the full testimony as I mentioned tonight.

To Ms. Belanger, I am unsure of the reasoning for your comment that you were “all set” when I said I would send this email so you could read the rest of what I wanted to share during public comments. I speak before many governmental bodies, including the House and Senate Education Committees in Concord.

These committees are made up of elected officials from both political parties. No one has ever commented that they were “all set” when a member of the public was unable to complete their testimony and then offered to email the committee members the full text. I will not assume your reasoning, but I have to be honest, your response to me, a constituent and taxpayer in the district where you are supposed to serve as our representative on the school board, came across as rude and condescending. I hope you will reconsider how you respond to people who come to offer public comments from this point forward.

I kindly request that the testimony below be reflected in the School Board minutes.

August 4th : Testimony to the SAU21 North Hampton School Board:

Good evening, my name is Ann Marie Banfield. I am a resident of SAU21 and currently reside in North Hampton. Thank you for your service to our community.

I presented testimony to the SAU21 school board a few weeks ago regarding the upcoming training session in September for teachers in SAU21 by Seacoast Outright. As someone who is active in New Hampshire supporting academic excellence in public education, I urged the board members to reconsider this decision and cancel the training session.

Today I’m here to make that request of the North Hampton school board.

Seacoast Outright is a political organization with a political agenda. We should all be asking why a political organization will be presenting training to school personnel in an effort to filter their political viewpoint down to the children in this district.

What if some of the teachers or families have a different worldview? How will that be handled? How is it inclusive to those families who may not share these political views? Why is this training exclusive of diverse viewpoints? How does this respect the diversified families in North Hampton?

While Seacoast Outright does not offer medical advice, they do include links to various websites that do.

For instance, they provide a list of resources on their website that students and teachers would be able to access.

These resources include information on top surgeries, bottom surgeries, and hormonal therapy for children who are experiencing gender dysphoria.

Seacoast Outright tries to relieve itself of any responsibility when offering children medical advice, but by putting links on their website directing children to biased medical resources, they are directing families to resources that share their political viewpoint.

Let’s start with the hormonal therapy that was listed as services offered by their medical resources.

Puberty blockers now come with a warning label from the Food and Drug Administration. The warning was issued after six minors (ages 5-12) experienced severe symptoms.

The minors were all biological females, and suffered from symptoms such as; tumor-like masses in the brain, seeing bright lights that aren’t there, headache or vomiting, swelling of the optic nerve, increased blood pressure, and eye paralysis.

At the 2021 conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 80% of the members supported a resolution calling for “more debate and discussion of the risks, benefits, and uncertainties inherent in the practice of medically transitioning minors.” Pediatric medical professionals are still wading through all of the medical issues impacting children with gender dysphoria.

Seacoast Outright published nothing about the warning from the FDA on their website, but includes resources that provide puberty blockers for children.

In May of 2021, the Swedish Karolinska University Hospital, chose to stop administering hormone blockers to children with transgender issues due to its controversial nature, potential side effects, and the lack of scientific support for the treatment’s efficacy.

In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11 years old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.

The chief physician and pediatric endocrinologist who treats children suffering from gender dysphoria slammed the use of hormone-blocking drugs, and called it “chemical castration.”

Who will take responsibility if one of the children in our district suffers from these severe and sometimes life-long medical problems? Seacoast Outright? The administrators? The School Board?

What about top surgeries and bottom surgeries? There is no information that I could find on the Seacoast Outright website that explains how some children are now publicly sharing their feelings of regret after removing their breasts and testicles.

This is the danger when political organizations become the “experts” instead of actual unbiased medical experts who are not tied to any political organization.

But one must ask, how does any of this help the teachers in the classroom when it comes to improving academic outcomes?

With some students not meeting proficiency in the core classes, shouldn’t that be the focus in our school district? When we are spending about $30k/student, how do you reconcile the money spent for teacher training in this way? Children need their teachers in the classroom, and many teachers will complain privately that these training sessions are a waste of time and precious resources.

In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, Massachusetts’s schools focused on academic achievement. Part of that included teacher training that was focused on helping them understand the core subject content. They put a plan in place to focus on making their public schools the best in the country, and they succeed.

Teachers were given basic math tests, and many of them failed. This wasn’t a time to bash teachers but the time to support teachers in the best ways possible. Helping the teachers to know and understand the academic content helped them to better educate the children in the public schools.

The children in Massachusetts ranked at the top on the national tests and scored well on the TIMSS international test in math and science. Massachusetts children were able to compete with students in countries like Singapore.

This kind of training is supported by the community and will help improve the public schools.

If we have families that decide to remove their children from the school because they see more politicization taking place in their school, we also lose some of our government funding.

These sensitive topics are about medical and mental health care that no one in this district has expertise in.

If administrators are going to engage with individuals in New Hampshire on this topic, then they should be speaking directly to medical and mental health professionals who have no political bias, and focus primarily on what’s best for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

All viewpoints should be presented, not just one. That’s exclusive not inclusive.

While I fully respect and can appreciate any political organizations advocating for their issues, I do not believe this is a wise use of taxpayers dollars, nor do I believe that turning the district into a political battleground is good for the school or community.

You can watch this testimony here (Begin at about 7 min), and please watch the family right after.

The post “Why is a Political Activist Organization Presenting Training to School Personnel?” appeared first on Granite Grok.

In June 1794 the United States Congress passed a tax on the ownership of carriages. The tax called for a levy, “Upon all carriages for the conveyance of persons, which shall be kept by or for any person for his or her own use, or to be let out to hire or for the conveyance of passengers, the several duties and rates following.”

This tax levy seemed to confirm some of the greatest fears of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison lamented, “The tax on carriages succeeded in spite of the Constitution.”

Many protested the tax through civil disobedience. As discussed in a previous article, Daniel Lawrence Hylton, a wealthy Virginia businessman, refused to pay it because in his opinion it was unconstitutional and void. This led to the landmark Supreme Court Case  Hylton v. United States.

From the beginning, the taxing clause (Article I, §  8 Cl 1) evoked strong opposition from the Anti-Federalists. Some even warned that if the states adopted the Constitution as it was, they would experience a tyranny worse than they had endured under Britain.

The Anti-Federalists cited five major flaws with the general taxation clause of the new proposed Constitution.

First, they believe the clause was so vague that its interpretation could allow taxation of virtually any source within the country. The Anti-Federalist Brutus produced possibly the most widely read Anti-Federalist documents at the time of the ratification.  Clearly dissatisfied with the federalist explanations of the taxation clause, Brutus V notes that the apparent vagueness of the clause could allow the federal government unlimited taxing authority.

“To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a news-paper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation.”

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase confirmed this opinion in the Hylton case.

Brutus went on to explain the dangers that could ensue if his opinion was correct:

“It will lead to the passing of a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance and riot on the spoils of the country.”

Brutus was correct; Congress would decide how constitutional articles are defined. However, they would do so with the rubber stamp of the Supreme Court in Hylton.

Second, the Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution in its present form left the states defenseless against federal overreach in the area of taxation.  In a letter concerning federal power, the Federal Farmer wrote:

The state governments then, we are told, will stand between the arbitrary exercise of power and the people. True they may, but armless and helpless, perhaps, with the privilege of making a noise when hurt. This is no more than individuals may do. Does the constitution provide a single check for a single measure by which the state governments can constitutionally and regularly check the arbitrary measures of congress?

In the Farmer’s opinion, the proposed Constitution contained no express provision for the states to check any law or arbitrary use of federal power.

Third, the Anti-Federalists noted that the taxing authority granted to the federal government, in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution would destroy the sovereignty of the states and give the federal government unlimited taxing power. A Republican Federalist wrote:

“To give them the power of laying taxes, duties, imposts and excises by way of providing for the welfare of the United States, and then constitute them judges of what is necessary for these purposes, is giving them power to satisfy at the expense of the state’s any whim which ambition or the love of ostentatious might suggest to them. But yet every law that’s made will be binding, for they have an additional power expressly granted them to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all the powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.”

Here James Warren, a prominent Massachusetts Anti-Federalist, specifically cites Article I, § 8, Clause 18 – the Necessary and Proper Clause. Warren keenly observes that the Necessary and Proper Clause will empower the federal government to be the ultimate judges of what taxes they may levy on the states. It would also give Congress the ability to pass any law they chose. Thus, they would have unlimited power of taxation over the states.

Fourth, the Anti-Federalists argued that a lack of limitations on the taxation clause would allow revenue to be channeled into military spending, particularly a standing army. The nation’s recent experience with the British military made many founders acutely aware of the dangers of a standing army. History had also shown them the threat a standing army posed to an existing government when controlled by the likes of Caesar.

Indeed, George Mason at the Virginia ratifying convention exclaimed, what havoc desolation and destruction have been perpetrated by standing armies. In many Anti-Federalists’ opinions, Article I, § 8, Clause 12 hinted at this danger. In his eighth essay, Brutus wrote:

“The power to raise armies is indefinite and unlimited and authorizes the raising of forces as well in peace as in war. Brutus notes the vagueness of this clause as he did with the general taxation clause.“

Samuel Bryan, writing under the name Centinel, argued that the new nation was moving further towards militarism than even Britain, as parliament was only allowed to authorize the raising of troops for one year at a time. However, the Anti-Federalists understood that the real danger of the army clause lay in its coupling with the general taxation clause. A series of Anti-Federalist essays under the pen name An Old Whig appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer. The Old Whig wrote:

“The unlimited power of taxation will give them the command of all the treasures of the continent, a standing army will be wholly at their devotion.“

An Old Whig warned the American people that if the new government was permitted unlimited taxing power, eventually a standing army would be a distinct possibility.

In a speech before the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Williams Symmes hinted at what a standing army might be used for, he stated:

“For sir, I also disapprove of the power to collect, which is here vested in Congress. It is a power sir to burden us with a standing army.“

Symmes suggested that the purpose of a standing army would indeed be used for the purpose of collecting taxes:

“Congress may spend money in aid of the general welfare, the line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general, this discretion however is not confined to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.”

Patrick Henry at the Virginia ratifying convention introduced a fifth criticism of the general taxation clause. Henry argued that by ascending to the new constitution, the people of the states would subject themselves to a situation of double taxation. 

“In the scheme of energetic government, that people will find two sets of tax gathers the state and the federal sheriff’s. This it seems to me will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression make what distresses he pleases. As and ruin you with impunity for how are you to tie his hands. by ratifying the constitution, the people of the states would in effect place themselves under mandatory Federal and State Taxation.”

Patrick Henry also rejected the Federalist argument that the federal government, comprised of the people’s representatives, would reflect foremost each State’s own interest:

“I shall be told in this place, that those who are to tax us are our representatives. To this I answer that there is no real check to prevent their ruining us. There is no actual responsibility.  The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not re-electing them. This sir, is but a feeble barrier, when their personal interest, their ambition and avarice, come to be put in contrast with the happiness of the people. All checks founded on anything but self-love will not avail.”

In Henry’s mind, federal dependence on the State’s power will not be a check against federal overreach because individual representatives will always act out of self-interest first and State interest second.

In the next article, we will examine the Federalists’ arguments against the Anti-Federalists’ fears, as well as why the Anti-Federalists would ultimately, turn out to have been correct in their interpretation of the taxing power.

 

 

Bob Fiedler | Republished with permission from The Tenth Amendment Center

The post The Prophetic Anti-Federalist Warnings About Constitutional Taxing Power appeared first on Granite Grok.

Sue Evans, Common Sense: How Tavistock Came Tumbling Down I joined the Tavistock Clinic in North London as a clinical nurse therapist in 2003. Back then, Tavistock was prestigious—known all over the world for its professional seminars and specialized psychological... Tom Bowler

Jordan Boyd, The Federalist: FBI Director Sets New Record For Lies, Dodges, And Obfuscations To Avoid Slight Attempts At Congressional Oversight FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to answer legislators’ questions about his agency’s history of corruption and cover-ups and instead... Tom Bowler

Leah Barkoukis, Townhall: The Story About DeSantis Removing Woke, Soros-Backed State Attorney Just Got Even Better Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday announced he had suspended woke, Soros-backed State Attorney Andrew Warren for failing to enforce state laws. “State Attorneys... Tom Bowler

I’ve been at this a while now, and there’s one thing I can say with some certainty. The most dangerous armed ‘militia group’ in the United States is probably the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI is armed and partisan. They don’t care about the law. They engage in domestic terror tactics but what makes them worse is they are pretending to protect people and enforce laws to which they appear unaccountable.

Lying, hiding exculpatory evidence, things that would get you indicted by them, come and go like a breeze without moving as much as a stray hair on their politicized heads.

I’d say they’ve become the CIA, but that might offend the Central Intelligence Agency, which also appears to be engaged in domestic terror operations inside the US alongside the FBI.

From faking gubernatorial abductions to setting up citizens as insurrectionists, entrapment appears to be the second best thing they are good at after avoiding prosecution (or is it helping political assets avoid prosecution?).

Let’s call it a toss-up.

All we need is a leaked memo, like the one making the rounds leaked to Project Veritas.

The “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” was leaked to Project Veritas, which released images of the bulletin on its website and social media on Aug. 2. It includes such common images as the Gadsden flag, the Betsy Ross flag, and the Liberty Tree. …

 

But maybe not every time or all the time.

 

“The use or sharing of these symbols alone should not independently be considered evidence of MVE presence or affiliation, or serve as an indicator of illegal activity, as many individuals use these symbols for their original historic meaning or other non-violent purposes,” the bulletin reads.

 

Domestic Terrorism Definition Explainer: We will pick and choose what it means based on who, when, and whim.

 

Widespread use of symbols and quotes from American history, especially the Revolutionary War, exists within MVE networks,” the bulletin says. “Historic and contemporary military themes are common for MVE symbols.”

 

And…the founding of the nation was an act of domestic terrorism!

And, if you happen to be the tyrannical monarch or carry their water, then I suppose that would be true.

 

 

The post In “Leaked Memo” FBI … Identifies Itself as Militant Domestic Terror Group appeared first on Granite Grok.

Jeremy Duda, Axios: Trump-backed Kari Lake wins GOP nomination for Arizona governor Kari Lake defeated Karrin Taylor Robson in Arizona's Republican gubernatorial primary, AP reports, propelling the Trump-endorsed candidate into a general election where she's favored to become the state's... Tom Bowler

In our lifetime, we have had bad Presidents. See Jimmy Carter. We have had disgraced Presidents. See Richard Nixon. And we have had Presidents who hated our great country. See Barack Obama. And we have had Presidents who loved this country.

See Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. But we never had a President beholden to so many of our enemies as President Joe Biden.

China continues to show how much they own Biden because of the millions of dollars they gave the Biden Cartel through Hunter Biden. The weakness we are showing the world when it comes to Russia, China, North Korea, and even Iran is embarrassing. We are no longer a superpower to be feared but a cartel to be bought. Joe Biden has shown us that you can be in Washington for fifty years, be Vice President, and hide in your basement to win the Presidency, and it is all about personal gain.

That last paragraph was hard to write. I love this country and all it has stood for throughout the years. No other country in history has sent more of its treasure to aid other countries. We have been a model country that people will risk their lives to breach our borders to enjoy, and the Biden family has sold us out for millions of dollars. The arrogance and self-righteousness of the Bidens are palpable, and probably the worst of the lot is the matriarch, Jill Biden. She is fully aware that her husband is not fit for the office, yet she has pushed him to the limits, and the American people are paying the price.

Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has exposed Biden as a puppet of the Chines government. There was no significant purpose to her trip other than a photo op and to escape the United States while her husband was facing the ramifications of his recent DUI arrest. There is no evidence to prove the White House leaked the plans for her trip, but it is evident that Biden disapproved of her stop in Taiwan. The Defense Department was not pleased with her decision, but Nancy listened to no one. She landed in Taiwan and ruffled the feathers of the Chinese government.

China went on the offensive and used the media to express its anger at Pelosi’s trip. They even threatened to shoot down Air Force Two if it dared to enter China’s airspace. No hyperbole. she put the world on the brink. China did not attack, but they have already implemented strict import and export restrictions on Taiwan, and they will be escalating its live military exercises in the Taiwan Straight. For this, she got nothing more than to secure her role as possibly the most influential person in Washington.

In the meantime, Biden remained silent and feckless. He never called out the Chinese government for the rhetoric or subsequent action. How can he? He is on their payroll. We have a President who, in the face of danger from any of our significant enemies, is powerless because he took the money.

The continued threat of COVID and mandates by the powerful teachers’ unions, record high gas prices, a porous Southern Border, historic high inflation numbers, thousands of dead Americans from Chinese Fentanyl, and now the recession are not enough damage for Biden to reign down on America. Now he is powerless to protect our National Security because of money. Millions of dollars he and his son, Hunter, have taken in at the expense of you and me. Forget his second term. Joe Biden should be indicted, but he won’t.

The post Never Have We Had Such a Compromised President appeared first on Granite Grok.

I am currently on the Republican primary ballot for the US House of Reps, District 1. Although I’m not a Trump supporter, I sent, by registered mail, a letter to the Foreman of the Grand Jury in Fulton County, Georgia, in defense of Trump.

He did not do what he is accused of.

Pelosi’s Select Committee hearings were disgusting. I want my country back!

Here is a video of me reading the Grand Jury letter. If 22 minutes is too much for your busy day, just see my comment. For a discussion of the Jan 6 psyop, any Granite Stater is welcome to my home on Sunday, August 7 at 2 pm. That’d be 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord. Or contact me at my campaign website www.ConstitutionAndTruth.com.

We want to thank Mary Maxwell for this Op-Ed. Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.

 We’ll get this right, you know!

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRN0CnBxNpA

 

 

Reminder: Content about candidates or by candidates is not an endorsement by GraniteGrok.com or its authors.

The post Pelosi’s Select Committee Hearings Were Disgusting appeared first on Granite Grok.

Earlier this year, the State of Massachusetts was asked to provide the “science” that justified school mask mandates and could not provide any. The answer? “The Department of Public Health does not have any documents in its custody or control that are responsive to your request.”

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health didn’t have any; just wear a mask ‘cuz reasons.

Along that same varicose vein, a University of Southern Maine professor was shown the door after asking for something similar from her school.

 

[Patricia] Griffin, a former professor of marketing, claims that the university fired her after she requested data that would support the university’s mask mandate.

According to the lawsuit, Griffin attended a luncheon in August 2021 remotely that then-President Glenn Cummings attended in person. Griffin claimed that Cummings was not adhering to the mask policy which prompted her to request the data responsible for the policy.

 

Griffin was attending remotely. She wasn’t there in person. And when pressed about not following the masking policy, she asked to see “the science” behind it. Instead of an answer, her classes were canceled, and she was suspended for not following the policy.

Griffin claims she never refused to follow the policy. She just asked for its justification. But asking questions or pursuing truth is no longer a feature of American universities. The approved knowledge is like scripture, not to be questioned.

In this case I feel confident that the University’s response would have been similar to that of the State of Massachusetts. “The Department of Public Health does not have any documents in its custody or control that are responsive to your request.”

To borrow from the sweat-shop sports shoe concern known as Nike, Just do It!

Potemkin Public Health

Griffin’s lawyers claim that the school wronged her because she never said she wouldn’t follow the policy. She only asked for the data that supported it during a remote online meeting, and for that, they ended her employment.

They wanted her to wear the mask even if she was alone and participating electronically. We’ve seen that before. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources expected personnel to be masked even during online meetings.

 

“Also, wear your mask, even if you are home, to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen — such as on Zoom or another video-conferencing platform  … “Set the safety example which shows you as a DNR public service employee care about the safety and health of others.”

 

I’m sorry, no! Masks present significant health risks to almost everyone for little or no public benefit. Masking in private is stupid, as is the notion that it sets a good example. But the real issue is that these entities provided no detailed informed consent related to risks associated with the requirement.

One local example is Plymouth State University. Masking wasn’t enough. They decided to mandate KN95 masks on campus. These are highly regulated pieces of protective equipment. OSHA has extensive rules and training requirements for their proper use and fit, complete with protection and compliance guides and a list of side effects that can result from prolonged use, like signs that you need to stop using them.

No one, to my knowledge (in the public or private sector) that embraced mask mandates did that or did it right with any style of mask. That includes surgical masks, which OSHA reminds us, “..are not designed or certified to prevent the inhalation of small airborne particles that are not visible to the naked eye but may still be capable of causing infection.”

The latter is the sort Professor Griffin was expected to wear while “dialing in” remotely to an event. Something she says she would do. She just wanted to see the data that justified it.

The University didn’t have any because it does not exist, so they fired her, and she is suing them. I’m not optimistic about her chances, but cases like this expose more people to the irrational chaos of pointless mandates, so we wish her luck.

 

 

The post Professor Alleges She Was Fired After Asking for Data to Justify School Mask Mandate Policy appeared first on Granite Grok.

Did the Constitution fail?

A lot of people think it did. This popular quote by Lysander Spooner sums up the thoughts of many.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Arguing against ratification of the Constitution, Brutus wrote:

“Constitutions are not so necessary to regulate the conduct of good rulers as to restrain that of bad ones.”

It’s pretty easy to see that didn’t happen. The bad ones have expanded federal government power decade after decade to the point that we now live under the largest government in history. It’s understandable for some people to conclude that the Constitution failed in its primary aim.

But asking whether the constitution failed is actually the wrong question. To find out the source of the problem, we need to dig a little deeper.

John Dickinson was known as “the Penman of the Revolution” and was the primary author of the first draft of the Articles of Confederation. Writing under the penname Fabius in support of ratification of the Constitution, he wrote:

“A good constitution promotes, but not always produces a good administration.” [Emphasis added]

Dickinson’s position was that a good constitution is the starting point. It makes it more difficult for the government to violate your liberty. But that doesn’t mean it will always play out that way. You can’t just rely on the document itself. You need something more to ensure “a good administration.”

James Madison made the same point in Federalist #48 when he warned of the inadequacy of “parchment barriers.”

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”

In other words, you can’t just write words on paper and expect them to keep government from centralizing and consolidating power.

Gouverneur Morris was a key figure in the drafting of the Constitution. Writing in his diary years later, he expressed a similar sentiment, observing that “considerate men are not dupes of patriotic professions.”

“Neither will they confide the defence of their liberty to paper bulwarks.”

He went on to assert that such men never believed that amendments (the Bill of Rights) gave any additional security to life, liberty, or property.

Discussing peace negotiations with the British in 1782, John Jay also warned against parchment barriers. And he alludes to what we really need to keep governments in check.

“He thought an explicit acknowledgment of our independence in treaty very necessary, in order to prevent our being exposed to further claims. I told him we should always have arms in our hands to answer those claims; that I considered mere paper fortifications as of but little consequence.” [emphasis added]

All of these founding-era figures observed that you can’t depend on mere words written on paper to stop people with power from exercising or expanding power.

Securing Our Rights

The Declaration of Independence asserted that the purpose of government is to “secure our rights.”

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Given that we live under the largest government in history and it violates our rights on a daily basis, it’s difficult to argue that we are a free people. In practice, we are a people begging on our knees for permission to be free. Our current situation proves that the government created by the Constitution utterly failed in its most basic role.

But given the warnings of these and many others in the founding generation, we shouldn’t be shocked at the failure of parchment barriers.

St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the U.S. Constitution. In View of the Constitution of the United States, he pointed out that “all governments have a natural tendency towards an increase. and assumption of power.” He also observed that “the administration of the federal government has too frequently demonstrated that the people of America are not exempt from this vice in their constitution.”

“We have seen that parchment chains are not sufficient to correct this unhappy propensity.”

If words on paper won’t restrain government, how can government be restrained?

As Madison put it in Federalist #48, “some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary.” In other words, somebody has to enforce the parchment barriers.

In Federalist #46, Madison gave us the blueprint. In a nutshell, resist the overreaching power.

In practical terms, Madison called for “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.” He said if people in even one state did this, it would create “very serious impediments.” And if people in several states acted together, Madison said it would “create obstructions which the federal government would be hardly willing to encounter.”

Thomas Jefferson echoed this spirit of resistance in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, saying, “A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

As already mentioned, many people use Spooner’s “whether the Constitution be one thing or another” quote to highlight the failure of the document. But in his A Defense for Fugitive Slaves, Spooner outlined the same basic strategy for enforcing the Constitution as Madison and others in the founding generation. He argued that the “right and the physical power of the people to resist injustice” are the only security they have for their liberties.

“Practically no government knows any limit to its power but the endurance of the people.”

He also asserted that “the right of the people, therefore, to resist an unconstitutional law, is absolute and unqualified, from the moment the law is enacted.”

As Roger Sherman argued during the ratification debates, no bill of rights, or any document for that matter, “ever yet bound the supreme power longer than the honey moon of a new married couple, unless the rulers were interested in preserving the rights.”

The key is to make it “in their interest” to preserve the rights by resisting them every time they cross the line – from the very moment they cross the line. As Dickinson put it in opposition to the Townshend Acts in 1767, we must “oppose a disease at its beginning.” Or as John Adams later put it, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.”

It is up to the people to love liberty, to demand it, to fight for it whether the government people want us to or not.

That brings us back to Dickinson who argued it ultimately comes down to the “supreme sovereignty of the people.”

We have the final authority and responsibility.

“It is their duty to watch, and their right to take care, that the Constitution be preserved; or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions – to provide that the Republic receive no damage.”

So, if the Constitution wasn’t preserved, was it the document that failed to limit itself? Or was it a failure of the people to take human action to restrict the actions of government?

Based on the founders, the old revolutionaries, and even Spooner, it was the latter.

A lesser-known supporter of the Constitution writing under the pseudonym State Soldier argued that there is nothing in the Constitution itself that “particularly bargains for a surrender of your liberties.”

“It must be your own faults if you become enslaved. Men in power may usurp authorities under any constitution — and those they govern may oppose their tyranny.” [Emphasis added.]

George Washington made a similar observation, saying “if their Citizens should not be completely free & happy, the fault will be entirely their own.”

This dovetails with Spooner’s view.

“The exercise of the right is neither rebellion against the constitution, nor revolution—it is a maintenance of the constitution itself, by keeping the government within the constitution. It is also a defence of the natural rights of the people, against robbers and trespassers, who attempt to set up their own personal authority and power, in opposition to those of the constitution and people, which they were appointed to administer.”

On Sept 17, 1787, the day the Constitution was signed by delegates at the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin delivered a speech. His words were eerily prophetic.

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Franklin knew the government created by the Constitution would fail — not because of any structural defect. He said that the Constitution would be “well administered for a course of years.” But he predicted it would go off the rails because the people would not do their job in keeping that government within its limits. At they point, they would become incapable of operating under anything other than despotism.

The Constitution didn’t fail us. We failed the Constitution.

 

 

Mike Maharrey | Republished with permission from The Tenth Amendment Center

The post Did the Constitution Fail the People? Or Did the People Fail the Constitution? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Some clever minx tweaked the universe for our amusement after Joe Biden fell off his bicycle. The location, near his home in Rehoboth Beach, very briefly had a map dot labeled “Brandon Falls.”

And yes, you read that right. After years of climate fearmongering about sea-level rise, the Bidens, in 2017, purchased beachfront property. Shoreline. Ocean view. Doomed!!!

 

“Throughout our careers, Jill and I have dreamed of being able to buy a place at the beach at home where we can bring the whole family. We feel very lucky that we’re now able to make that happen and are looking forward to spending time with our family in the place that matters most to us in the world,” Biden wrote in a statement.

 

Beachfront!!!

 

 

Listed at 9.4 million in 2017 when they bought it, it is a far cry from Barry’s beachfront mansion on Martha’s Vinyard, but hey, hypocrisy has no price tag, so whatever, yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And while Google fixed the map dot, I think we should keep calling it Brandon Falls.

 

 

 

The post Spot of Biden’s Bike Mishap Briefly Appears on Google Maps as “Brandon Falls” Delaware appeared first on Granite Grok.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist: All FBI Agents Must Blow Their Whistles Or They’ll Be Complicit In Bureau’s Politicization The new information revealed by the FBI whistleblowers exposes yet a further scandal, which Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., highlighted in a letter... Tom Bowler

Does it make sense to do this in the name of equity, equality, and even-handedness? A school district just banned preferred pronouns in emails, pride flags, Black Lives Matter Flags, back the badge signs, and all other personal “political” stuff.

 

[Kettle Moraine School District Superintendent Stephen] Plum said teachers and administrators are prohibited from displaying political or religious messages in their classrooms or on their person.

 

No Christian Flags or Trump stuff, or any of that either. Just math, science, geography, history, what kind of school is this?

 

Trey Korte, a gay man who taught English at Kettle Moraine High School until 2019, expressed his concerns about the decision. “When you remove something that had been there awhile that represented a marginalized group, when you take that away, it does make people feel unwelcome,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

 

So the thing that you put there that identified you as marginalized is gone, and…that’s bad? Imagine a world where everyone at work keeps that crap to themselves, regardless of preference, and just teaches the subject.

What would we call that? How about a SCHOOL?!

Parents are not paying you to advertise your sexuality. It has no place in that building or with students. And putting it out in front of faculty and staff should be considered a form of sexual harassment.

This entire victim culture is backward. You marginalize yourselves, demand special attention, and then you blame everyone else and declare yourself a victim.

Screw that.

I know free speech, and in the context of the classroom and education, have at it. But the Kettle Moraine School District just leveled the playing field in the purest sense of the term. Everyone is a person with equal rights under the law, not because they wave a flag or support some cause but because they are human beings.

Take the win.

Or are you just upset because you can’t groom or indoctrinate other people’s children and lie to the parents about it?

 

 

The post School District Bans Pride Flags, Preferred Pronouns, … appeared first on Granite Grok.

The past few years have presented multiple challenges for engaged couples and newlyweds. The national health crisis resulted in the cancellation, postponement, or downsizing of weddings and limited travel for honeymoons.

Now that the national health crisis seems to be subsiding, couples are anxious to get hitched and take a much-needed honeymoon. 

Although temporary, a honeymoon is an effective way to recharge, have fun, and connect as newlyweds. It’s a chance to get out of the same environment, cast your cares, and just have a good time. Before you start dreaming about the wedding sparklers for send off, hopping in a limo, and heading to the airport, there are some things you need to know to ensure your honeymoon is a success. 

We’re Not Out Of The Woods Yet

Although there are COVID-19 vaccines and the number of new cases is declining, it doesn’t mean the threat is over. There’s still a possibility of contracting the coronavirus. Not to mention, new strands regularly develop, increasing your risks. So whether you decide to get vaccinated or not, you should still comply with mask and social distancing regulations as a precaution, especially when you’re traveling as you’re more inclined to get exposed. 

Some Places Are Worse Than Others

When selecting a destination for your honeymoon, be mindful of where you travel. Although the US appears to be moving towards post-pandemic times, other countries are still suffering. Ideally, you want to steer clear of these areas to avoid the possibility of contracting the virus and spreading it to others. 

It’s Going To Cost

The pandemic left the economy in pieces. Ultimately, getting things back on track means that hard-hit industries like hotels and tourism will inflate prices. As a result, newlyweds can expect to pay percentages more for honeymoons this year than in times past. The hope is to make up for some of the loss with the high travel demand this summer. So, if you’re working with a tight budget, you’ll want to shop around for deals to cut costs. 

Availability Is Slim

Honeymooning this summer is at the top of every couple’s list. While no one can blame them, this does create a problem for any last-minute travel planning. Hotels, rental cars, airline tickets, and even admissions to popular events will sell quickly. Believe it or not, some places have already reported being booked through Labor Day. 

If you can find something available, chances are you’re going to pay a lot more. Ultimately, it’s best to reserve everything you need for your honeymoon in advance. Take advantage of platforms that allow you to make reservations without paying upfront.

There Will Be Crowds

If honeymooning is a top priority for many newlyweds, rest assured there will be crowds. Everything from the airport to popular tourist attractions will be brimming with travelers ready to have a good time. Unfortunately, larger crowds not only mean an increased risk for the coronavirus, but it also means limited privacy and longer wait times. 

If you’re not a fan of traveling in crowds, you’ll need to plan activities during a time when fewer people attend. You might also consider traveling to non-traditional but entertaining destinations. Finally, find ways to have fun in your hotel room or suite. You can enjoy a candlelight dinner, listen to romantic music, get a couple’s massage, or go for a stroll on the beach with a few 36 inch sparklers to add to the magic. 

Take Precautions

There’s not much you can do to change the facts about honeymooning this summer, but you can ensure that you’re prepared. Getting vaccinated can reduce your risks of contracting the coronavirus, making it safer for you to travel. Updating your travel, health, car, and term life insurance can protect you and your family financially if something goes wrong. Finally, select your travel destination wisely and follow health regulations when in large crowds. There’s nothing wrong with wearing a mask, washing your hands, and social distancing, even if no one else is.

It has been a long few years, to say the least. Since things are subsiding, couples are anxious to celebrate their union and have fun. Although honeymooning is a nice break from all the madness, you must be mindful when making plans. While the above factors shouldn’t discourage you from getting away, taking heed can help you avoid a lot of headaches during your trip. 

 

 

The post Honeymooning in 2022: Everything Newlyweds Should Know appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Schumer-Manchin bill that dropped last week ironically dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will do nothing to reduce inflation but will unleash the largest industrialization of U.S. open lands not seen since the damming of our western rivers, according to Lisa Linowes, energy policy expert and Executive Director of the Wind Action Group.

In her detailed analysis of the Schumer-Manchin Bill, Ms. Linowes cites reports that the legislation’s impact on inflation “will be statistically indistinguishable from zero through 2031” yet can disproportionally increase taxes on low- and moderate-income taxpayers. And its provisions will raise energy costs that will have a ripple effect through the entire economy.

On the spending side, the bill offers a huge windfall for wind and solar industrialization projects, erasing the 2016 phase-out of the wind production tax credit (PTC), increasing solar’s investment tax credit (ITC), and making the tax credits permanent.

It introduces a new “Clean Electricity” program that purports to be “tech neutral” but in fact is covertly designed to benefit wind and solar industries alone. Whether or not these energy sources can stand up on their own market merits without subsidies, the real benefactors are fat-cat Wall Street investors and mega corporations looking for tax deductions to offset, in part, the Schumer-Manchin tax increases.

We want to thank Jonathan Linowes for this Op-Ed. Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.

Ms. Linowes goes on to say, “For those less concerned with cost and more concerned with saving the planet, think again,” the legislation will lead to the industrialization of our lands that will spread across 30 million acres (50,000 sq. mi.), a land mass equal to the States of Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware combined! This is not being unduly alarmist, she gives the numbers that reflect the facts of the bill. “Schumer-Manchin will make it impossible to stop,” she explains.

The Senate must reject Schumer-Manchin lest we “irreparably damage our open spaces, precious wildlife, and teetering economy with repercussions on the U.S. that will last for generations.”

 

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

The post The Schumer-Manchin Bill will Unleash Environmental and Economic Destruction appeared first on Granite Grok.

While two of New Hampshire’s utilities are about to double the cost of electricity, Australia, a leader in blind devotion to the lies of green energy, saw their rates triple. According to one expert, “Australians haven’t seen a fraction of what’s coming.”

This comes on the heels of an announcement last month that the Australian government will have to pay fossil fuel operators to scale up and burn if they want to “keep the lights on” as electricity prices continue to spiral upward and out of control.

Australia stopped building nuclear, decommissioned coal plants, and banned fracking (sound familiar).

 

“The impacts in local fuel markets of extremely high international prices for traded gas and thermal coal.

“Reduced availability of coal-fired generation, due to scheduled maintenance as well as long- and short duration forced outages, driving high levels of gas-fired generation, which both raised electricity prices and put pressure on local gas markets.

“Physical fuel supply and hydrological constraints at a number of thermal and hydro generators, which further limited their operational flexibility.”

 

Blah, blah, blah, we effed-it-up but don’t dare take credit because they’ve got no backup plan. And you can’t blame Putin. Joe Biden and his Green agenda are most likely at fault.

America went from a net exporter of cheap energy to, almost overnight, a chronic dependent of expensive fuel.

OPEC, strapped for wealth while Trump was building American energy dominance, has no interest in increased production and, in some cases, insists it’s not even possible.

China is opening dirty coal plants as fast as it can (to fuel manufacturing and a growing war machine). In the US, Democrats demand paper straws and whine about lawnmower exhaust.

And Down Under, they are on the precipice of something worse than another tripling of electricity costs that will suck their economy into a storm drain and drown it.

And as a nation, as inundated by the effects of Chinese influence as any, they have to seriously consider what’s left for national defense if everything is leveraged toward living like (at least) a second-world nation.

The continent has massive mineral resources, including loads of uranium. If China decides it wants any or all of that, their influence has put Australia on the path of least resistance, especially if America’s Military is sidelined over the increasingly vexing problem of proper pronoun usage.

Meanwhile, here in New Hampshire (and New England), our rates are about to double, so we are on a slightly slower train to the same destination. And instead of finding increased natural gas capacity from domestic suppliers, we are spending millions to plan a commuter rail line. Why? So the cartels run by illegals in Lawrence can more readily get Chinese Fentanyl trafficked across our open southern border up to Manchester and Concord?

What will that train run on, by the way – asking for a friend?

 

 

HT | WUWT

The post Australia’s Energy Price Problems Get Worse – Will New England Get the Hint? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Presented without fanfare.  Please do look back, if you haven’t already, at the most recent Monday Memes and Meme Overflow.  And share this – for in ridicule and mockery lies the weaking of the Left.

Note that Survival Sunday will be delayed; an abbreviated one posted Monday or Tuesday.  Even yours truly needs a break once in a while.

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

 

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

 

                                                                                             

 

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

 

As always, many good ones.  But… here.  The Left CHEERS for mass shootings because they’re the pretext to pass more gun control.

 

 

And this is the very quintessential meme – funny, but wrapped around truth to make it more palatable:

 

 

The post Friday Meme Overflow-Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

The epic hypocrisy of the Public Health Industrial Complex and its response to The Pandemic could, and we hope, will fill volumes. The mistakes or deliberate acts of these “experts” cost millions their lifestyles and countless lives.

I say countless because they won’t count them. That includes miscounts, misdiagnosis (for cash), suicides, overdose deaths, and loss of life resulting from delayed treatment or preempted surveillance visits. Then add the vaccine harms and murders, and the numbers are staggering.

In America, those numbers result from an organized operation implemented by machine politicians to discredit a known “cure.” We’ve covered this ground, but we can’t let it go.

In 2005 Anthony Fauci’s NIH published a peer-reviewed report titled, “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.”

Related: We Know Why The Public Health Industrial Complex Had to Discredit Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin

 

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensinconverting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

 

And to ensure you grasp the scope of what this means, none of this pandemic crap needed to happen. Hydroxychloroquine administered with zinc and azithromycin would have flattened the curve and kept it flat. Fauci knew it. The US public health establishment knew or had access to the research. State and local public health infrastructure counseling politicians knew or had access to it.

Related: American Journal Of Medicine Admits Trump Was Right About Hydroxychloroquine

With rare exceptions, they all ignored that and instead demonized chloroquines. No one contradicted the media’s fear campaign. Those that dared were pilloried, lost their jobs, and to this day struggle for credibility when they were the only credible experts.

In exchange for their devotion to “the Family,” the feds laundered trillions of dollars to drug companies, state and local health agencies, and hospitals, many of whom mandated an unnecessary experimental cure that is worse for many than the actual “disease.”

The story of COVID is not the virus. It is the response, the politics, and the blood money. Democide.

And while there are plenty of places to point fingers, the 2005 report from NIH is the smoking gun, and we cannot stop letting people know how they were lied to and at what cost.

Related: Company That Launched (Retracted) Hit Piece on Hydroxychloroquine Vanishes

The ‘experts’ ignored their science, lied to the public, the media, and those crafting health policy, and even broke the law. Probably as an excuse to find a path away from a second Trump term. He was a threat to their cabal, and to quote Nancy Pelosi, “if there is collateral damage to Americans who don’t share our views, so be it.”

She’s not the only machine politician who believes that, and this is not the limit of where they’d go to ensure “their views” win the day and every day after.

 

 

 

The post Reminder: According to Fauci’s NIH Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus appeared first on Granite Grok.