I recently read this Reason article about how homeschooling as increased since the pandemic. Some quotes from people who are apparently against homeschooling blew my mind.  I had the need to share some comments about them.

“Policymakers should think, ‘Wow — this is a lot of kids,'” Elizabeth Bartholet, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School told the Post “We should worry about whether they’re learning anything.”

Are these people worried about parents teaching their own kids, rather than the innumerable number of kids in public schools who get socially promoted and graduate without being able to read? To say nothing of the 50+ years of data that show that learning in schools is flatlined.

“I can tell you right now: Many of these parents don’t have any understanding of education,” added one school board member. “The price will be very big to us, and to society. But that won’t show up for a few years.”

Ha ha! Many certified teachers don’t have any understanding of how to teach kids to read! And the price is already humongous.

 

Homeschools are judged by the worst possible outcomes.

Government schools are judged on their aspirations.

 

When will these people take their heads out of their butts and see what’s actually going on?  What a crazy world we live in.

The post Homeschool Double Standard appeared first on Granite Grok.

President Joe Biden says 24 million Americans “suffer from food insecurity!”

News anchors were shocked that there is “food insecurity in the richest country in the world!” ABC hosts turned “insecurity” into “hunger.”

But in my new video, Rachel Sheffield, who researches welfare policy at the Heritage Foundation, explains, “Food insecurity is not the same thing as hunger. It just means that they had to rely on cheaper foods, store-brand alternatives … or reduce variety.” (RELATED: JOHN STOSSEL: Rand Paul Was Right)

Really? The alarm about “food insecurity” is based on that? Well, yes. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its fine print, admits that “for most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety of food rather than insufficient quantity.”

“They always want to create a crisis,” I say to Sheffield.

“Government programs want to keep themselves going,” she replies.

She’s talking about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; the Women, Infants and Children program; the National School Lunch Program and the other constantly growing handouts that make up America’s welfare system.

The biggest effect of these handouts is to harm the people they want to help. They harm people by making them dependent on government.

Before government’s War on Poverty began, Americans were steadily lifting themselves out of poverty. Year after year, the number of people living below the poverty line dropped.

That natural progress wasn’t good enough for us.

We (I include myself because I believed it, too) who wanted to reduce poverty declared “War on Poverty.” Welfare checks poured out. The poverty rate continued to drop for seven years. But then progress stopped.

What happened? Why did progress stop?

Because handouts taught people to be dependent.

Welfare payments did something remarkable. They created a new class of dependent people — a nearly permanent “underclass,” where generation after generation lives in poverty.

Today, government does things to perpetuate that, like claiming millions of Americans are “food insecure.” Charities raise money using the same language.

But the opposite is true.

“Americans consume too many calories,” says Sheffield. “Food insecure” adults are more likely to be obese.

When that became obvious, activists promoted a new myth: Poor people are overweight because they live in “food deserts,” neighborhoods where healthy foods are much less available. Michelle Obama talked about that a lot. She claimed some poor people had to take three busses to buy healthy food.

Nonsense.

When government officials first labeled “food deserts,’ they deviously ignored small stores, only counting stores with more than $2 million in sales. It’s true that one “food desert” Obama visited didn’t have a supermarket. But it had multiple smaller businesses selling fruits and vegetables. Government officials just didn’t count them.

Now, the media claim college students are food insecure.

But most college goers gain weight at school! At school!

It’s bizarre that when obesity is the bigger problem, government hypes food insecurity. But of course, “that creates the rationale for expanding food assistance programs, expanding the welfare system,” explains Sheffield.

Expanding welfare seems to be the government’s goal. “We’ve spent more on the War on Poverty than all the military wars combined in the United States without any success,” says Sheffield.

Really? More than all our wars combined? Well, yes. We’ve spent $23 trillion on the War on Poverty. So far.

“Actually,” says Sheffield, “it’s been a success in one way. It increases dependence on the federal government.” That’s what bureaucrats consider success.

The handouts are good for the people who dole out the money. They’re good for politicians who get to look like “good guys.” (RELATED: SUZANNE DOWNING: Generation Blubber — Good Times Forge Weak Men)

But they’re bad for poor people.

Before government handouts began, private charities helped people escape poverty. They encouraged people to learn how to take care of themselves. Work gradually lifted people out of poverty. “Work also has a lot of other benefits,” Sheffield points out. “It builds a greater sense of community, gives people access to resources and friend networks that help them improve in their lives.”

Encouraging self-sufficiency is so much better than what government does.

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”

 

John Stossel | Daily Caller

COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post How Did All These ‘Hungry’ People Get So Fat? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Rep Rashida Tlaib is not shy about her partisan preference for Palestine. She claims to be Palestinian. So when Hamas invaded Israel and slaughtered civilians, Tlaib wasn’t remorseful. In fact, she had some rather impolite remarks, which is par for the course.

Words to which she is entitled, but so then, are her colleagues permitted to express their disfavor of those words. They did.

 

The 234-188 tally came after enough Democrats joined with Republicans to censure Tlaib, a punishment one step below expulsion from the House. The three-term congresswoman has long been a target of criticism for her views on the decades-long conflict in the Middle East.

 

“Enough Democrats,” including New Hampshire CD-1 seat-warmer Chris Pappas, has taken some heat, and it looks like someone in leadership permitted him to vote Yea. He did. Pappas still supported BDS legislation and generally toes the line on the Democrat party’s negative view of Israel. I’m not sure he’s allowed to have his own opinion,

Ann Kuster voted against censure. There is no press from either yet on that vote (that I found), but Pappas does have another related piece of PR.

 

On Tuesday, November 7, Congressman Chris Pappas (NH-01) joined a statement on the phrase “from the river to the sea” and the ongoing Hamas-Israel War.

The text of the statement reads:

“We reject the use of the phrase “from the river to the sea”— a phrase used by many, including Hamas, as a rallying cry for the destruction of the State of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people. We all feel deep anguish for the human suffering caused by the war in Gaza. Hamas started this war with a barbaric terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, and neither the Palestinian nor Israeli people can have peace as long as Hamas still rules over Gaza and threatens Israel.  …

 

He seems to be in rehab mode, but … did he give the 8K back yet?

 

You can see how your stooge voted on the censure below or at this link. Alphabetical by Last Name.

H.Res. 845: Censuring Representative Rashida Tlaib for promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.
name	party	state	district	vote
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R]	Republican	AL	4	Yea
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D]	Democrat	GA	2	Nay
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D]	Democrat	OR	3	Nay
Rep. Michael Burgess [R]	Republican	TX	26	Yea
Rep. Ken Calvert [R]	Republican	CA	41	Yea
Rep. John R. Carter [R]	Republican	TX	31	Yea
Rep. Ed Case [D]	Democrat	HI	1	Nay
Rep. James Clyburn [D]	Democrat	SC	6	Nay
Rep. Tom Cole [R]	Republican	OK	4	Yea
Rep. Danny Davis [D]	Democrat	IL	7	Nay
Rep. Diana DeGette [D]	Democrat	CO	1	Nay
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D]	Democrat	CT	3	Nay
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R]	Republican	FL	26	Yea
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D]	Democrat	TX	37	Nay
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D]	Democrat	CA	16	Nay
Rep. Kay Granger [R]	Republican	TX	12	Yea
Rep. Sam Graves [R]	Republican	MO	6	Yea
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D]	Democrat	AZ	7	Nay
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D]	Democrat	MD	5	Nay
Rep. Darrell Issa [R]	Republican	CA	48	Yea
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee [D]	Democrat	TX	18	Not Voting
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D]	Democrat	OH	9	Nay
Rep. Rick Larsen [D]	Democrat	WA	2	Not Voting
Rep. John Larson [D]	Democrat	CT	1	Nay
Rep. Barbara Lee [D]	Democrat	CA	12	Nay
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D]	Democrat	CA	18	Nay
Rep. Frank Lucas [R]	Republican	OK	3	Yea
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D]	Democrat	MA	8	Nay
Rep. Betty McCollum [D]	Democrat	MN	4	Nay
Rep. James McGovern [D]	Democrat	MA	2	Nay
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D]	Democrat	NY	5	Nay
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D]	Democrat	NY	12	Nay
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D]	Democrat	CA	31	Nay
Rep. Richard Neal [D]	Democrat	MA	1	Nay
Rep. Frank Pallone [D]	Democrat	NJ	6	Nay
Rep. Bill Pascrell [D]	Democrat	NJ	9	Nay
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D]	Democrat	CA	11	Nay
Rep. Harold Rogers [R]	Republican	KY	5	Yea
Rep. Mike Rogers [R]	Republican	AL	3	Yea
Rep. A. Dutch Ruppersberger [D]	Democrat	MD	2	Nay
Rep. Linda Sanchez [D]	Democrat	CA	38	Nay
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D]	Democrat	IL	9	Nay
Rep. Adam Schiff [D]	Democrat	CA	30	Nay
Rep. David Scott [D]	Democrat	GA	13	Nay
Rep. Robert Scott [D]	Democrat	VA	3	Nay
Rep. Pete Sessions [R]	Republican	TX	17	Yea
Rep. Brad Sherman [D]	Democrat	CA	32	Nay
Rep. Michael Simpson [R]	Republican	ID	2	Yea
Rep. Adam Smith [D]	Democrat	WA	9	Nay
Rep. Christopher Smith [R]	Republican	NJ	4	Yea
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D]	Democrat	MS	2	Nay
Rep. Mike Thompson [D]	Democrat	CA	4	Nay
Rep. Michael Turner [R]	Republican	OH	10	Yea
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D]	Democrat	NY	7	Nay
Rep. Maxine Waters [D]	Democrat	CA	43	Nay
Rep. Joe Wilson [R]	Republican	SC	2	Yea
Rep. Jim Costa [D]	Democrat	CA	21	Yea
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D]	Democrat	FL	25	Yea
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D]	Democrat	MO	5	Nay
Rep. Brian Higgins [D]	Democrat	NY	26	Nay
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R]	Republican	NC	5	Yea
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R]	Republican	NC	10	Yea
Rep. Al Green [D]	Democrat	TX	9	Nay
Rep. Michael McCaul [R]	Republican	TX	10	Yea
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D]	Democrat	TX	28	Nay
Rep. Cathy Anne McMorris Rodgers [R]	Republican	WA	5	Yea
Rep. Gwen Moore [D]	Democrat	WI	4	Nay
Rep. Doris Matsui [D]	Democrat	CA	7	Nay
Rep. Kweisi Mfume [D]	Democrat	MD	7	Nay
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R]	Republican	CA	20	Yea
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R]	Republican	CO	5	Yea
Rep. Joe Courtney [D]	Democrat	CT	2	Nay
Rep. Kathy Castor [D]	Democrat	FL	14	Nay
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R]	Republican	FL	16	Yea
Rep. Henry C. Johnson [D]	Democrat	GA	4	Nay
Rep. John Sarbanes [D]	Democrat	MD	3	Nay
Rep. Tim Walberg [R]	Republican	MI	5	Yea
Rep. Adrian Smith [R]	Republican	NE	3	Yea
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D]	Democrat	NY	9	Nay
Rep. Jim Jordan [R]	Republican	OH	4	Yea
Rep. Steve Cohen [D]	Democrat	TN	9	Yea
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R]	Republican	FL	12	Yea
Rep. Robert Wittman [R]	Republican	VA	1	Yea
Rep. Robert Latta [R]	Republican	OH	5	Yea
Rep. Bill Foster [D]	Democrat	IL	11	Nay
Rep. Andre’ Carson [D]	Democrat	IN	7	Nay
Rep. Steve Scalise [R]	Republican	LA	1	Yea
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D]	Democrat	VA	11	Nay
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R]	Republican	KY	2	Yea
Rep. James Himes [D]	Democrat	CT	4	Nay
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R]	Republican	MO	3	Yea
Rep. Tom McClintock [R]	Republican	CA	5	Nay
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D]	Democrat	ME	1	Nay
Rep. Bill Posey [R]	Republican	FL	8	Yea
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R]	Republican	PA	15	Yea
Rep. Dina Titus [D]	Democrat	NV	1	Nay
Rep. Paul Tonko [D]	Democrat	NY	20	Nay
Rep. Mike Quigley [D]	Democrat	IL	5	Nay
Rep. Judy Chu [D]	Democrat	CA	28	Nay
Rep. John Garamendi [D]	Democrat	CA	8	Nay
Rep. Terri Sewell [D]	Democrat	AL	7	Nay
Rep. Paul Gosar [R]	Republican	AZ	9	Yea
Rep. David Schweikert [R]	Republican	AZ	1	Yea
Rep. Eric Crawford [R]	Republican	AR	1	Yea
Rep. Steve Womack [R]	Republican	AR	3	Yea
Rep. Daniel Webster [R]	Republican	FL	11	Not Voting
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D]	Democrat	FL	24	Yea
Rep. Austin Scott [R]	Republican	GA	8	Yea
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R]	Republican	IN	8	Yea
Rep. Andy Harris [R]	Republican	MD	1	Yea
Rep. William R. Keating [D]	Democrat	MA	9	Nay
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R]	Republican	MI	4	Yea
Rep. Bill Johnson [R]	Republican	OH	6	Yea
Rep. Mike Kelly [R]	Republican	PA	16	Yea
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R]	Republican	SC	3	Yea
Rep. Charles Fleischmann [R]	Republican	TN	3	Yea
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R]	Republican	TN	4	Yea
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R]	Republican	VA	9	Yea
Rep. Mark Amodei [R]	Republican	NV	2	Yea
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici [D]	Democrat	OR	1	Nay
Rep. Thomas Massie [R]	Republican	KY	4	Nay
Rep. Suzan DelBene [D]	Democrat	WA	1	Nay
Rep. Donald Payne Jr. [D]	Democrat	NJ	10	Nay
Rep. Doug LaMalfa [R]	Republican	CA	1	Yea
Rep. Jared Huffman [D]	Democrat	CA	2	Nay
Rep. Ami Bera [D]	Democrat	CA	6	Nay
Rep. Eric Swalwell [D]	Democrat	CA	14	Nay
Rep. David Valadao [R]	Republican	CA	22	Yea
Rep. Julia Brownley [D]	Democrat	CA	26	Nay
Rep. Tony Cárdenas [D]	Democrat	CA	29	Nay
Rep. Raul Ruiz [D]	Democrat	CA	25	Nay
Rep. Mark Takano [D]	Democrat	CA	39	Nay
Rep. Juan Vargas [D]	Democrat	CA	52	Nay
Rep. Scott Peters [D]	Democrat	CA	50	Nay
Rep. Lois Frankel [D]	Democrat	FL	22	Yea
Rep. Bradley Schneider [D]	Democrat	IL	10	Yea
Rep. Garland Barr [R]	Republican	KY	6	Yea
Rep. Daniel Kildee [D]	Democrat	MI	8	Nay
Rep. Ann Wagner [R]	Republican	MO	2	Yea
Rep. Richard Hudson [R]	Republican	NC	9	Yea
Rep. Ann Kuster [D]	Democrat	NH	2	Nay
Rep. Steven Horsford [D]	Democrat	NV	4	Nay
Rep. Grace Meng [D]	Democrat	NY	6	Nay
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries [D]	Democrat	NY	8	Nay
Rep. Brad Wenstrup [R]	Republican	OH	2	Yea
Rep. Joyce Beatty [D]	Democrat	OH	3	Nay
Rep. David Joyce [R]	Republican	OH	14	Present
Rep. Scott Perry [R]	Republican	PA	10	Yea
Rep. Matthew Cartwright [D]	Democrat	PA	8	Nay
Rep. Randy Weber [R]	Republican	TX	14	Yea
Rep. Joaquin Castro [D]	Democrat	TX	20	Nay
Rep. Roger Williams [R]	Republican	TX	25	Yea
Rep. Marc Veasey [D]	Democrat	TX	33	Nay
Rep. Derek Kilmer [D]	Democrat	WA	6	Nay
Rep. Mark Pocan [D]	Democrat	WI	2	Nay
Rep. Robin Kelly [D]	Democrat	IL	2	Nay
Rep. Jason Smith [R]	Republican	MO	8	Yea
Rep. Katherine Clark [D]	Democrat	MA	5	Nay
Rep. Donald Norcross [D]	Democrat	NJ	1	Present
Rep. Alma Adams [D]	Democrat	NC	12	Nay
Rep. Gary Palmer [R]	Republican	AL	6	Yea
Rep. French Hill [R]	Republican	AR	2	Yea
Rep. Bruce Westerman [R]	Republican	AR	4	Yea
Rep. Ruben Gallego [D]	Democrat	AZ	3	Nay
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier [D]	Democrat	CA	10	Nay
Rep. Pete Aguilar [D]	Democrat	CA	33	Nay
Rep. Ted Lieu [D]	Democrat	CA	36	Nay
Rep. Norma Torres [D]	Democrat	CA	35	Nay
Rep. Ken Buck [R]	Republican	CO	4	Nay
Rep. Earl Carter [R]	Republican	GA	1	Yea
Rep. Barry Loudermilk [R]	Republican	GA	11	Yea
Rep. Rick Allen [R]	Republican	GA	12	Yea
Rep. Mike Bost [R]	Republican	IL	12	Yea
Rep. Garret Graves [R]	Republican	LA	6	Yea
Rep. Seth Moulton [D]	Democrat	MA	6	Nay
Rep. John Moolenaar [R]	Republican	MI	2	Yea
Rep. Debbie Dingell [D]	Democrat	MI	6	Nay
Rep. Tom Emmer [R]	Republican	MN	6	Yea
Rep. Ryan Zinke [R]	Republican	MT	1	Yea
Rep. David Rouzer [R]	Republican	NC	7	Yea
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman [D]	Democrat	NJ	12	Nay
Rep. Elise Stefanik [R]	Republican	NY	21	Yea
Rep. Brendan Boyle [D]	Democrat	PA	2	Nay
Rep. Brian Babin [R]	Republican	TX	36	Yea
Rep. Donald Beyer [D]	Democrat	VA	8	Nay
Rep. Dan Newhouse [R]	Republican	WA	4	Yea
Rep. Glenn Grothman [R]	Republican	WI	6	Yea
Rep. Alexander Mooney [R]	Republican	WV	2	Yea
Rep. Trent Kelly [R]	Republican	MS	1	Yea
Rep. Darin LaHood [R]	Republican	IL	16	Yea
Rep. Warren Davidson [R]	Republican	OH	8	Yea
Rep. James Comer [R]	Republican	KY	1	Yea
Rep. Dwight Evans [D]	Democrat	PA	3	Nay
Rep. Andy Biggs [R]	Republican	AZ	5	Yea
Rep. Ro Khanna [D]	Democrat	CA	17	Nay
Rep. Jimmy Panetta [D]	Democrat	CA	19	Nay
Rep. Salud Carbajal [D]	Democrat	CA	24	Nay
Rep. Nanette Barragán [D]	Democrat	CA	44	Nay
Rep. Luis Correa [D]	Democrat	CA	46	Nay
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester [D]	Democrat	DE	0	Nay
Rep. Matt Gaetz [R]	Republican	FL	1	Yea
Rep. Neal Dunn [R]	Republican	FL	2	Yea
Rep. John Rutherford [R]	Republican	FL	5	Yea
Rep. Darren Soto [D]	Democrat	FL	9	Yea
Rep. Brian Mast [R]	Republican	FL	21	Yea
Rep. Drew Ferguson [R]	Republican	GA	3	Yea
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi [D]	Democrat	IL	8	Nay
Rep. Jim Banks [R]	Republican	IN	3	Yea
Rep. Clay Higgins [R]	Republican	LA	3	Yea
Rep. Jamie Raskin [D]	Democrat	MD	8	Nay
Rep. Jack Bergman [R]	Republican	MI	1	Yea
Rep. Don Bacon [R]	Republican	NE	2	Yea
Rep. Josh Gottheimer [D]	Democrat	NJ	5	Yea
Rep. Adriano Espaillat [D]	Democrat	NY	13	Nay
Rep. Claudia Tenney [R]	Republican	NY	24	Yea
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [R]	Republican	PA	1	Yea
Rep. Lloyd Smucker [R]	Republican	PA	11	Yea
Rep. David Kustoff [R]	Republican	TN	8	Yea
Rep. Vicente Gonzalez [D]	Democrat	TX	34	Nay
Rep. Jodey Arrington [R]	Republican	TX	19	Yea
Rep. Pramila Jayapal [D]	Democrat	WA	7	Nay
Rep. Mike Gallagher [R]	Republican	WI	8	Yea
Rep. Ron Estes [R]	Republican	KS	4	Yea
Rep. Ralph Norman [R]	Republican	SC	5	Yea
Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D]	Democrat	CA	34	Nay
Rep. John Curtis [R]	Republican	UT	3	Yea
Rep. Debbie Lesko [R]	Republican	AZ	8	Yea
Rep. Michael Cloud [R]	Republican	TX	27	Yea
Rep. Troy Balderson [R]	Republican	OH	12	Yea
Rep. Kevin Hern [R]	Republican	OK	1	Yea
Rep. Joseph Morelle [D]	Democrat	NY	25	Nay
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon [D]	Democrat	PA	5	Nay
Rep. Susan Wild [D]	Democrat	PA	7	Present
Rep. Greg Stanton [D]	Democrat	AZ	4	Nay
Rep. Josh Harder [D]	Democrat	CA	9	Nay
Rep. Katie Porter [D]	Democrat	CA	47	Nay
Rep. Mike Levin [D]	Democrat	CA	49	Nay
Rep. Joe Neguse [D]	Democrat	CO	2	Nay
Rep. Jason Crow [D]	Democrat	CO	6	Nay
Rep. Jahana Hayes [D]	Democrat	CT	5	Nay
Rep. Michael Waltz [R]	Republican	FL	6	Yea
Rep. Gregory Steube [R]	Republican	FL	17	Yea
Rep. Lucy McBath [D]	Democrat	GA	7	Nay
Rep. Russ Fulcher [R]	Republican	ID	1	Yea
Rep. Chuy García	Democrat	IL	4	Nay
Rep. Sean Casten [D]	Democrat	IL	6	Nay
Rep. Lauren Underwood [D]	Democrat	IL	14	Nay
Rep. James Baird [R]	Republican	IN	4	Yea
Rep. Greg Pence [R]	Republican	IN	6	Yea
Rep. Sharice Davids [D]	Democrat	KS	3	Nay
Rep. Lori Trahan [D]	Democrat	MA	3	Nay
Rep. Ayanna Pressley [D]	Democrat	MA	7	Nay
Rep. David Trone [D]	Democrat	MD	6	Nay
Rep. Elissa Slotkin [D]	Democrat	MI	7	Nay
Rep. Haley Stevens [D]	Democrat	MI	11	Nay
Rep. Rashida Tlaib [D]	Democrat	MI	12	Nay
Rep. Angie Craig [D]	Democrat	MN	2	Yea
Rep. Dean Phillips [D]	Democrat	MN	3	Not Voting
Rep. Ilhan Omar [D]	Democrat	MN	5	Nay
Rep. Pete Stauber [R]	Republican	MN	8	Yea
Rep. Michael Guest [R]	Republican	MS	3	Yea
Rep. Kelly Armstrong [R]	Republican	ND	0	Yea
Rep. Chris Pappas [D]	Democrat	NH	1	Yea
Rep. Jefferson Van Drew [R]	Republican	NJ	2	Yea
Rep. Andy Kim [D]	Democrat	NJ	3	Nay
Rep. Mikie Sherrill [D]	Democrat	NJ	11	Nay
Rep. Susie Lee [D]	Democrat	NV	3	Yea
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D]	Democrat	NY	14	Nay
Rep. Madeleine Dean [D]	Democrat	PA	4	Nay
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan [D]	Democrat	PA	6	Nay
Rep. Daniel Meuser [R]	Republican	PA	9	Yea
Rep. John Joyce [R]	Republican	PA	13	Yea
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler [R]	Republican	PA	14	Yea
Rep. William Timmons [R]	Republican	SC	4	Yea
Rep. Dusty Johnson [R]	Republican	SD	0	Yea
Rep. Tim Burchett [R]	Republican	TN	2	Yea
Rep. John W. Rose [R]	Republican	TN	6	Yea
Rep. Mark E. Green [R]	Republican	TN	7	Yea
Rep. Dan Crenshaw [R]	Republican	TX	2	Yea
Rep. Lance Gooden [R]	Republican	TX	5	Yea
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher [D]	Democrat	TX	7	Nay
Rep. Veronica Escobar [D]	Democrat	TX	16	Nay
Rep. Chip Roy [R]	Republican	TX	21	Yea
Rep. Sylvia Garcia [D]	Democrat	TX	29	Nay
Rep. Colin Allred [D]	Democrat	TX	32	Nay
Rep. Ben Cline [R]	Republican	VA	6	Yea
Rep. Abigail Spanberger [D]	Democrat	VA	7	Present
Rep. Jennifer Wexton [D]	Democrat	VA	10	Nay
Rep. Kim Schrier [D]	Democrat	WA	8	Yea
Rep. Bryan Steil [R]	Republican	WI	1	Yea
Rep. Carol Miller [R]	Republican	WV	1	Yea
Rep. Jared Golden [D]	Democrat	ME	2	Yea
Rep. Dan Bishop [R]	Republican	NC	8	Yea
Rep. Gregory Murphy [R]	Republican	NC	3	Yea
Rep. Thomas Tiffany [R]	Republican	WI	7	Yea
Rep. Mike Garcia [R]	Republican	CA	27	Yea
Rep. Jerry Carl [R]	Republican	AL	1	Yea
Rep. Barry Moore [R]	Republican	AL	2	Yea
Rep. Jay Obernolte [R]	Republican	CA	23	Yea
Rep. Young Kim [R]	Republican	CA	40	Yea
Rep. Michelle Steel [R]	Republican	CA	45	Yea
Rep. Sara Jacobs [D]	Democrat	CA	51	Nay
Rep. Lauren Boebert [R]	Republican	CO	3	Yea
Rep. Katherine Cammack [R]	Republican	FL	3	Yea
Rep. Scott Franklin [R]	Republican	FL	18	Yea
Rep. Byron Donalds [R]	Republican	FL	19	Yea
Rep. Carlos Gimenez [R]	Republican	FL	28	Yea
Rep. Maria Salazar [R]	Republican	FL	27	Yea
Rep. Nikema Williams [D]	Democrat	GA	5	Nay
Rep. Andrew Clyde [R]	Republican	GA	9	Yea
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene [R]	Republican	GA	14	Yea
Rep. Ashley Hinson [R]	Republican	IA	2	Yea
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks [R]	Republican	IA	1	Yea
Rep. Randy Feenstra [R]	Republican	IA	4	Yea
Rep. Mary Miller [R]	Republican	IL	15	Yea
Rep. Frank Mrvan [D]	Democrat	IN	1	Nay
Rep. Victoria Spartz [R]	Republican	IN	5	Yea
Rep. Tracey Mann [R]	Republican	KS	1	Yea
Rep. Jacob LaTurner [R]	Republican	KS	2	Yea
Rep. Jake Auchincloss [D]	Democrat	MA	4	Nay
Rep. Lisa McClain [R]	Republican	MI	9	Yea
Rep. Michelle Fischbach [R]	Republican	MN	7	Yea
Rep. Cori Bush [D]	Democrat	MO	1	Nay
Rep. Matthew Rosendale [R]	Republican	MT	2	Yea
Rep. Deborah Ross [D]	Democrat	NC	2	Nay
Rep. Kathy Manning [D]	Democrat	NC	6	Yea
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez [D]	Democrat	NM	3	Nay
Rep. Andrew Garbarino [R]	Republican	NY	2	Yea
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis [R]	Republican	NY	11	Yea
Rep. Ritchie Torres [D]	Democrat	NY	15	Yea
Rep. Jamaal Bowman [D]	Democrat	NY	16	Nay
Rep. Stephanie Bice [R]	Republican	OK	5	Yea
Rep. Cliff Bentz [R]	Republican	OR	2	Yea
Rep. Nancy Mace [R]	Republican	SC	1	Yea
Rep. Diana Harshbarger [R]	Republican	TN	1	Yea
Rep. Patrick Fallon [R]	Republican	TX	4	Yea
Rep. August Pfluger [R]	Republican	TX	11	Yea
Rep. Ronny Jackson [R]	Republican	TX	13	Yea
Rep. Troy Nehls [R]	Republican	TX	22	Yea
Rep. Ernest Gonzales [R]	Republican	TX	23	Yea
Rep. Beth Van Duyne [R]	Republican	TX	24	Yea
Rep. Blake Moore [R]	Republican	UT	1	Yea
Rep. Clarence Owens [R]	Republican	UT	4	Yea
Rep. Robert Good [R]	Republican	VA	5	Yea
Rep. Marilyn Strickland [D]	Democrat	WA	10	Nay
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald [R]	Republican	WI	5	Yea
Rep. Julia Letlow [R]	Republican	LA	5	Yea
Rep. Troy Carter [D]	Democrat	LA	2	Nay
Rep. Melanie Stansbury [D]	Democrat	NM	1	Nay
Rep. Jake Ellzey [R]	Republican	TX	6	Yea
Rep. Shontel Brown [D]	Democrat	OH	11	Nay
Rep. Mike Carey [R]	Republican	OH	15	Yea
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick [D]	Democrat	FL	20	Nay
Rep. Mike Flood [R]	Republican	NE	1	Yea
Rep. Brad Finstad [R]	Republican	MN	1	Yea
Rep. Mary Peltola [D]	Democrat	AK	0	Nay
Rep. Patrick Ryan [D]	Democrat	NY	18	Yea
Rep. Rudy Yakym [R]	Republican	IN	2	Yea
Rep. Dale Strong [R]	Republican	AL	5	Yea
Rep. Eli Crane [R]	Republican	AZ	2	Yea
Rep. Juan Ciscomani [R]	Republican	AZ	6	Yea
Rep. Kevin Kiley [R]	Republican	CA	3	Yea
Rep. John Duarte [R]	Republican	CA	13	Nay
Rep. Kevin Mullin [D]	Democrat	CA	15	Nay
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove [D]	Democrat	CA	37	Nay
Rep. Robert Julio Garcia [D]	Democrat	CA	42	Nay
Rep. Brittany Pettersen [D]	Democrat	CO	7	Nay
Rep. Yadira Caraveo [D]	Democrat	CO	8	Nay
Rep. Aaron Bean [R]	Republican	FL	4	Yea
Rep. Cory Mills [R]	Republican	FL	7	Yea
Rep. Maxwell Frost [D]	Democrat	FL	10	Nay
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna [R]	Republican	FL	13	Yea
Rep. Laurel Lee [R]	Republican	FL	15	Yea
Rep. Jared Moskowitz [D]	Democrat	FL	23	Yea
Rep. Rich McCormick [R]	Republican	GA	6	Yea
Rep. Mike Collins [R]	Republican	GA	10	Yea
Rep. Jill Tokuda [D]	Democrat	HI	2	Nay
Rep. Zachary (Zach) Nunn [R]	Republican	IA	3	Yea
Rep. Jonathan Jackson [D]	Democrat	IL	1	Nay
Rep. Delia Ramirez [D]	Democrat	IL	3	Nay
Rep. Nicole (Nikki) Budzinski [D]	Democrat	IL	13	Nay
Rep. Eric Sorensen [D]	Democrat	IL	17	Nay
Rep. Erin Houchin [R]	Republican	IN	9	Yea
Rep. Morgan McGarvey [D]	Democrat	KY	3	Nay
Rep. Glenn Ivey [D]	Democrat	MD	4	Nay
Rep. Hillary Scholten [D]	Democrat	MI	3	Nay
Rep. John James [R]	Republican	MI	10	Yea
Rep. Shri Thanedar [D]	Democrat	MI	13	Nay
Rep. Mark Alford [R]	Republican	MO	4	Yea
Rep. Eric Burlison [R]	Republican	MO	7	Yea
Rep. Mike Ezell [R]	Republican	MS	4	Yea
Rep. Donald Davis [D]	Democrat	NC	1	Yea
Rep. Valerie Foushee [D]	Democrat	NC	4	Nay
Rep. Charles (Chuck) Edwards [R]	Republican	NC	11	Yea
Rep. Wiley Nickel [D]	Democrat	NC	13	Yea
Rep. Jeffrey Jackson [D]	Democrat	NC	14	Nay
Rep. Thomas Kean [R]	Republican	NJ	7	Yea
Rep. Robert Jacobsen Menendez [D]	Democrat	NJ	8	Nay
Rep. Gabriel (Gabe) Vasquez [D]	Democrat	NM	2	Nay
Rep. Nicolas LaLota [R]	Republican	NY	1	Yea
Rep. George Santos [R]	Republican	NY	3	Yea
Rep. Anthony D’Esposito [R]	Republican	NY	4	Not Voting
Rep. Dan Goldman [D]	Democrat	NY	10	Yea
Rep. Michael Lawler [R]	Republican	NY	17	Yea
Rep. Marcus Molinaro [R]	Republican	NY	19	Yea
Rep. Brandon Williams [R]	Republican	NY	22	Yea
Rep. Nicholas Langworthy [R]	Republican	NY	23	Yea
Rep. Greg Landsman [D]	Democrat	OH	1	Yea
Rep. Max Miller [R]	Republican	OH	7	Yea
Rep. Emilia Sykes [D]	Democrat	OH	13	Nay
Rep. Josh Brecheen [R]	Republican	OK	2	Yea
Rep. Valerie Hoyle [D]	Democrat	OR	4	Nay
Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer [R]	Republican	OR	5	Yea
Rep. Andrea Salinas [D]	Democrat	OR	6	Nay
Rep. Summer Lee [D]	Democrat	PA	12	Nay
Rep. Chris Deluzio [D]	Democrat	PA	17	Nay
Rep. Seth Magaziner [D]	Democrat	RI	2	Nay
Rep. Russell Fry [R]	Republican	SC	7	Yea
Rep. Andrew Ogles [R]	Republican	TN	5	Yea
Rep. Nathaniel Moran [R]	Republican	TX	1	Yea
Rep. Keith Self [R]	Republican	TX	3	Yea
Rep. Morgan Luttrell [R]	Republican	TX	8	Yea
Rep. Monica De La Cruz [R]	Republican	TX	15	Yea
Rep. Jasmine Crockett [D]	Democrat	TX	30	Nay
Rep. Gregorio Casar [D]	Democrat	TX	35	Nay
Rep. Wesley Hunt [R]	Republican	TX	38	Yea
Rep. Jennifer Kiggans [R]	Republican	VA	2	Not Voting
Rep. Becca Balint [D]	Democrat	VT	0	Nay
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez [D]	Democrat	WA	3	Yea
Rep. Derrick Van Orden [R]	Republican	WI	3	Yea
Rep. Harriet Hageman [R]	Republican	WY	0	Yea
Rep. Jennifer McClellan [D]	Democrat	VA	4	Nay

HT | Truth Press

The post Rashida Tlaib Censured by US House: Chris Pappas Votes Yea; Ann Kuster Votes Nay [Complete Roll Call Included] appeared first on Granite Grok.

From Caroline: “Some context to this: I was not homeschooled, private, or classically schooled. I was a public school AP student. I got a 5 on the AP Human exam. My lowest AP exam scores were 4’s. I was all in on this system, and I navigated it very well. I came across this because of tutoring…”

 

Some context to this:
I was not homeschooled, private, or classically schooled. I was a public school AP student. I got a 5 on the AP Human exam. My lowest AP exam scores were 4’s. I was all in on this system, and I navigated it very well. I came across this because of tutoring… https://t.co/EV7Oaam9eT

— Caroline Andrews (@realcfandrews) November 2, 2023

Here is the enlarged image.

 

 

More from Caroline.

I’m not objecting as an outsider, but as a student who took these classes and did very well in them. I’m not a disgruntled AP failure trying to get revenge years later. I’m a student who, by the grace of God, has come to realize how incorrect and influential College Board is.

 

And.

 

 

 

The post AP’s Political Indoctrination (Population Control) in AP Human Geography appeared first on Granite Grok.

They’re flying so thick and fast it is amazing.  And I do apologize for skipping Monday – the entire weekend was crazy with scheduled things, and there was no time.  (Even with basically “pure memes” doing these does take precious time.)  But I’m back at it!

And yes, there will be a Friday Edition.  Last week’s Friday Edition.

Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:

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

Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there’s a fine balance here.  We’ve clearly gone too far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And more “stuff”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supposedly there actually is a growing market for unJabbed sperm.  Except… if the woman has had several shots, I think it’s landing on barren soil.

 

 

For all those saying the Israelis are immune… not so much.  (And a close personal friend over there has said the number of people who are “dying suddenly” is quite worrying.

 

 

 

 

The science was settled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth.  There’s that poem:

“A hundred years from now it will not matter | The Foundation for a Better Life (passiton.com)

 

 

I think the units / measurements are missing or just off.  But… that’s one heck of a building for a concentration camp.

 

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

 

Pick of the post:

 

 

Prep.  Get ready as best you can.  Going to try and wrap up the Survival Sunday post that’s been slow-cooking on the backburner.

 

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

 

Palate Cleansers:

 

—

—

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The post Memes on Wednesday appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you want to keep disease out of your country or to keep track of it when it arrives, then checking the health of those arriving at the door to your country makes sense, especially from places where unpleasant transmissible diseases are common.

We don’t do that.

Biden’s open border has allowed millions of illegal entrants into America with little if any, surveillance or screening. They are then bussed or flown to cities and towns in the interior and released into the wilds of modern America. Even during the height of COVID pandemic fear, the idea of testing and isolating anyone was sold as racist, nativist, or xenophobic. Be it COVID or any number of third-world plagues (aside from the invaders themselves) that we’d eradicated from sea to rising sea.

There is no concern for the risks to citizens and non-citizens alike, but the CDC has decided to increase surveillance for respiratory illness in airports. I assume this is for show. Look, we’re doing something!

 

“The expansion of the Traveler-based Genomic Surveillance program to flu, RSV, and other pathogens is essential as we head into fall respiratory season. The TGS program, which began during the COVID-19 pandemic, acted as an early warning system to detect new and rare variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and will do the same for other respiratory viruses going forward,” said Dr. Cindy Friedman, chief of the CDC’s Travelers’ Health Branch, in the statement. …

The CDC’s program has “enrolled” more than 360,000 air travelers since it was implemented in late 2021, the agency said, adding that it is both “voluntary and anonymous.” It covers flights from more than 135 countries around the world.

 

The government is collecting the genomic profiles of foreigners to look for flu viruses that statistically represent a low threat level but allow millions of people in unchecked – to the best of our knowledge – with any number of more dangerous diseases.

Are they watching to see where the next engineered respiratory virus arrives from so they can plan how they will deny it was engineered or originated in Nation X?

It seems more likely, given the situation.

And this is not about public health and safety.

 

 

The post CDC Expands Pathogen Surveillance … appeared first on Granite Grok.

A few days ago, I attended the Children’s Health Defense conference in Savannah, Georgia. A doctor sitting at my table said that the only relationship between a patient and doctor should be a direct one with no “employer” and no Third Party. As we all know, there are many heavy-handed Third Parties now.

I would include insurance companies, legislators who decide which medical care gets funded, the states’ disciplinary boards, and their Big Daddy, the AMA.

In Canada, Dr. Mark Trozzi, an outspoken Emergency Room physician, has just given the doctor-patient relationship a huge boost. He endured, on November 1, 2023, a decision by his professional board, which I will print below.

During the so-called pandemic, the wheat got separated from the chaff. We found out who the good doctors are, the ones who can use their own brains and refuse to follow bad orders. I’ll name just 5: McCullough in the US, Borody in Australia, Bhakdi in Germany, Coleman in the UK, and Trozzi in Canada. Possibly hundreds of good clinicians have had their licenses revoked. On Nov 10, 2023, Canada will make up its mind to revoke or not revoke Dr. Trozzi’s right to practice medicine.

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

Meanwhile, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal [beware “tribunals” – they are not the government, and they are not courts] has ruled that Trozzi is GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT and dishonorable conduct.

Good! Great! This Ontario group has clarified its own incompetence and/or malfeasance by making that “finding.” As a result, folks in Canada can now face up to the issue of the LEGITIMACY of such bodies. As the Ontario body is clearly siding with the baddies who are injuring everybody’s health and being blatantly dishonest, it is only logical to say that it lacks legitimacy. Eh?

Wait! Aren’t we supposed to sort through the history of how the organization was formed, what each doctor agreed to upon joining, what court rulings have been made, etc? Sure. It’s good practice to do that. But it won’t yield what we need — because all such legal papers had in them an overall assumption that all participants were morally normal and also were accountable.

In reality, there are now many people in our midst who are not morally normal. You can’t depend on them to be honest or humane or inspired by high principles — don’t waste your time wishing they were. In reality, they are part of a plan to bring an end to society as we know it.

I believe that the November 1, 2023 decision, shown below, about Mark Trozzi – as summarized by his Toronto attorney, Michael Alexander – is “just plain beautiful.” We couldn’t have asked for a better overview of the illegitimacy of the Ontario Tribunal.

I personally am not a doctor, but am the widow of one, and can relate to this whole disaster of “backroom authority.” I am in the law field and see it all the time with regard to the American Bar Association (ABA). In fact, I see much of Congress’s output as coming from a backroom – an unidentified and unacknowledged backroom. I am sick of it. Our brains are capable of seeing through these tricks.

Yay for Dr Mark Trozzi! Yay for all the Covid resistors! Yay for whistleblowers like Mike Yeadon and patent investigators like David E Martin. Yay, yay, yay!

Here’s the item, written by Michael Alexander, JD, who can be reached at malexanderjd@protonmail.com

COLLEGE DENIES DR. TROZZI’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

“The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has ruled that Dr. Mark Trozzi is guilty of professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct and is incompetent in the practice medicine for questioning the government’s Covid-19 narrative.

“He was also found guilty of professional misconduct and was deemed incompetent for writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections in support of a patient’s right to refuse coerced medical treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“In 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] established three Covid-19 restrictions through website statements — doctors were forbidden from:

(i) making any statements that discourage anyone from following Covid-19 public policies and recommendations;

(ii) prescribing alternative Health Canada approved medications for the treatment of Covid-19; and

(iii) writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections unless a patient had suffered a severe allergic reaction or developed myocarditis after a first shot.

“Based on the restrictions relating to freedom of expression and medical exemptions, the College issued investigation orders against Dr. Trozzi in 2021.

“This eventually led to a five-day hearing in July of 2023, during which the College Tribunal focused its prosecution on Dr. Trozzi’s daily newsletter at drtrozzi.org, where he had supposedly caused harm by spreading “misinformation” about Covid-19 science. The College was particularly concerned with Dr. Trozzi’s view that neither Big Pharma nor Health Canada had done the due diligence required to prove the Covid-19 injections were safe and effective. [!!!!]

“The Tribunal concluded that his views were inflammatory, unprofessional, and worthy of censure. On November 10th, the Tribunal will hold a penalty hearing to determine whether to revoke the license of the 25-year ER veteran and former university professor.”

Michael Alexander adds:

“The Tribunal did not address our argument that the College lacked the authority to investigate and prosecute Dr. Trozzi since its Covid-19 restrictions were merely recommendations rather than binding rules or regulations, even though we cited the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in support of our position.

“The Tribunal totally ignored our cross-examination of the College’s expert witnesses, which makes the entire decision a complete travesty.

“On cross, the College’s main expert witness on Covid science, Dr. Andrew Gardam, admitted that he had never responded to the 41-page expert report provided by Dr. Trozzi in which he rebutted Gardam’s own 8-page expert report with 29 scientific citations. As a result, in closing submissions, we argued that Dr. Trozzi was unrefuted on Covid science; yet, the Tribunal made no mention of this fact.”

“The Tribunal also paid no attention to the fact that the Supreme Court recognized an expansive right to freedom of expression as an inherent feature of parliamentary government as early as 1939, which gives the right a higher status than it enjoys under the Charter. In matters of law, we will appeal the decision to the Divisional Court on the standard of correctness.”

Comments by Mary Maxwell

I wasn’t kidding about rejoicing. The scales are falling from our eyes. Cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough has been about as pointed as one can get, and is lecturing all over the place. There is a link below to his video:  FIRE IN THE HOUSE OF MEDICINE.

The debunkers cannot keep up with him. Retrieved by me today, Nov 6, 2023, is an apnews.com report meant to “warn” you about Dr McCullough. It starts by saying that he quoted a CDC VAERS report incorrectly. He said that as of December 2022, the CDC counts the number of deaths occurring within a few days of taking the shot as 16,000.

No, says the debunker, CDC reports the December figure as 18,000.

(You can read that again.)

To AP’s credit, however, they do say that many of these are self-reports and do not prove that the vaccine actually caused the death. Still, we all know by now that the percentage of vax injuries that get reported is small. That percentage is probably rising now that people have figured out how to make a report to VAERS.

Note: Above, I forgot to add to my list of the “not morally normal” editors of medical journals and the teachers in medical schools who have UTTERLY ABANDONED SCIENCE. What kind of intimidation have they undergone to make them so afraid to speak truth? I don’t think bribery is the main factor. If anyone knows, please inform me at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com. Thank you!

 

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u4"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v3qjrd8","div":"rumble_v3qjrd8"});

 

The post Something New in Canada, Thanks to Vaccine Fighter Dr. Mark Trozzi appeared first on Granite Grok.

Republican Jay Ruais has won the Mayor’s race in Manchester, filling the seat vacated by Democrat Joyce Craig. He defeated Democrat Kevin Cavanaugh, Craig’s candidate of choice,  with only 6% turnout by a margin of about 480 votes. Cavanaugh has conceded the race.

Low turnout is not unusual for local or municipal elections when there are not state-wide or federal races, but low turnout has been a curse for Republicans in New Hampshire. Failure to get out the vote consistently costs them races where Democrats do a better job of getting their voters to the polls on election day.

Not in Manchester, and not on November 7th, 2023.

 

Jonathan Gerson, 38, a Manchester resident for 7 years, supported Ruais because “there’s some things that need to be done a lot better in the city.”

“He’s young. He’s likable. I think he’s going to be able to work well with different parties, with entities,” Gerson said. I think he will better coordinate and focus efforts on all the existing issues that we see — homelessness, housing prices.”

City officials said turnout at the polls was slow but steady throughout the day.

Patrick Cain, who owns the Mr. Mac restaurant with his sister and lives in Ward 1, said Manchester needs a change in supporting Ruais.

“We’ve got to have a change with all the issues going around, the crime rate and the homeless,” he said.

 

Manchester is a mess after six years of Democrat Joyce Craig. Ruais has a huge opportunity to make a difference before the November elections, which, if successful, could help candidates for NH House and Senate races. And, of course, the city and the people of Manchester.

Congratulations, Jay, and good luck. And, of course, we’ll all be watching.

 

HT | Union Leader

The post Manchester Has a Republican Mayor! appeared first on Granite Grok.

While at the Lake this summer, my 14-year-old grandson surreptitiously began reading the book his dad had asked me to read. After he finished the book, I asked him to write a summary to determine if he understood what he had read.

What follows is the summary of “The Storm Before the Calm,” a book every American should read in these troubled times to find peace of mind, he emailed me. 

“The Storm Before the Calm by George Freidman is a book about the current crisis in America and how it is related to past events. It also serves as a new and interesting look at American history. The main premise is that American history comes in two “cycles”: a socioeconomic one every fifty years and a governmental cycle every eighty.

The socioeconomic is self-explanatory, as the cycle involves social and economic systems changing, normally during a recession or depression. The governmental cycle shifts how the civic administration of the country works somewhat, and normally happens after a war (revolution-civil war, etc.).

Most recently, the two cycles are remarkably close together, culminating in the recent events we have seen. Now, it may seem that America is on the brink of collapse, but according to the author, the collision of the two cycles merely causes a very intense “pain” in the US.

The book claims that America has always survived these disasters at the end of cycles and becomes better as a result. With all the recent technological advancements and a new cycle on the horizon, there is hope for the future, is there not?” 

 

 

The post “The Storm Before the Calm” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Sender WRITES: As long as we insist on maintaining the “moral high ground,” we will NEVER win the war on terrorism! We’re in a conflict in which we absolutely INSIST on playing by the rules – against a maniacal group who have NO rules!

Rattlesnake Logic in dealing with terrorists.

A Texan explained it:

Here in West Texas, I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us.

I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch.

I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop, and on the driveway.

In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter. I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison. I don’t stop to wonder WHY a rattlesnake will bite me;

I know it WILL bite me because it’s a rattlesnake, and that’s what rattlesnakes do.

I don’t try to reason with a rattlesnake or have a “meaningful dialogue” with it. I just kill it.

I don’t try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me. I just kill them.

I don’t quiz a rattlesnake to see if I can find out where the other snakes are because (a) it won’t tell me and (b) I already know they live on my place. So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

I don’t look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a non-poisonous rat snake. I just kill it. Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time.

Also, I know for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush. In my lifetime, I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes.

Do I fear them? Not really. Do I respect what they can do to me and my family? Yes!

And because of that respect, I give them the fair justice they deserve. I kill them. As a country, we should start giving more thought to the fact that these jihadists are telling the world their goal is to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.

They have posted graphic videos on the Internet showing them beheading Americans. They are serious. They are exactly like rattlesnakes. It is high time for us to start acting accordingly!

I love this country. It’s the damn government I’m afraid of! Why?

Look who’s new in the White House!

Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mohammed Elibiary, Homeland Security Adviser.

Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Salam al-Marayati, Obama adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director.

Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America.

Eboo Patel, Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

This is flat-out scary! The foxes are now officially living in the hen house… Now, ask me why I am very concerned! Do you feel OK with this? How can this happen? – and when will we wake up?

We are quiet while our country is being drastically changed!

The post Night Cap: Rattlesnake Logic appeared first on Granite Grok.

First, let’s give credit where credit is due. Ian Price, writing at the Daily Skeptic– in a piece about Elon Musk’s comments on the environmental death cult – has concentrated, in one hyphenated word, encapsulated the essence of the Democrat Party.

Anti-human.

The Democrat party and their ideological offspring are guilty of the greatest hate crime of all – if you even think there is such a thing – they hate people. Reducing our numbers pleases them. From abortion to Medical suicide, experimental drugs, and life-ending protocols. Wars, conflicts, and mob justice. An anti-violence agenda begets exponentially more victims of violence, with cultural and social narratives that create division and strife (encouraging us to harm each other) and energy policies that put vulnerable people at risk.

They drug and mutilate children, knowing it could lead to increased suicidal ideation or death.

They are anti-human. And so we are clear, the Party is anti-human, as are the leaders who advance its agenda. Individual Democrats may not be anything of the sort, but we can’t ignore that by voting for Democrats, they enable these outcomes and should pay closer attention. Being a Democrat is no shield should you dare to challenge the approved orthodoxy. Excommunication is likely, but the Democrat party has killed Democrats to keep them from undermining their accumulation of power and pursuit of a one-party state.

And while the FBI will cover it up, that’s no consolation to the abruptly deceased or loved ones with questions.

Mainstreaming Death

The Democrats have always leaned toward death and not just abortion. Their Environmental extremists have been riding the depopulation hobby horse for years. A narrative that has infected the mainstream progressive party structure.

Price frames it thusly,

 

Moreover, the “death cult” that Musk describes is not compartmentalised within the environmental movement since it also pervades other dimensions of what are sometimes referred to as the ‘culture wars’. It is Musk’s death cult that arguably explains the war on women as a reproductive life force for humanity. It is, in my view, for this reason that we see coffee-chain adverts celebrating transitioning girls with mastectomy scars; it is why women can get arrested for praying for the lives of unborn children outside abortion clinics. It explains the antipathy towards economic growth and nuclear power. It also explains the dehumanisation of victims of the Hamas terror attacks who are regarded widely by the New Left as an inevitable and welcome outcome of decolonisation.

 

I am hard-pressed to identify any aspect of the Democrat Party agenda that does not inevitably put people’s lives at increased risk, from Welfare to public health and safety to energy and national security. Even their transportation priorities (electric vehicles, for example) create an increasing risk of loss of life or quality of life.

Welfare is not propping or giving people a hand up. It is trapping them in perpetual or generational poverty. Public education churns out illiterate cogs who can barely do math. And every effort to free people from these chains is deemed anti-government with the increased odds of a 5 a.m. visit from men in tactical gear to talk to you about the misinformation you’ve been peddling.

Democrats are anti-parent, anti-prosperity, anti-opportunity, anti-liberty, anti-human.

That’s the approach, but can we stick the landing?

 

 

The post The Democrat Party in One Word: Anti-Human appeared first on Granite Grok.

In light of Nobel Prizes being given to two researchers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations, beltway establishments like that of the Cato Institute have lauded praises onto the decision. To Cato, as evidenced by a blog post by Ian Vásquez, the production of these vaccines was a “victory of globalization!”

Whilst it certainly required a vast scale of global resources and networking, it was hardly what one could consider a free market victory. The development of these vaccines was done so by plundered resources, granted legal immunity, and captured market positions.

One aspect lost by the English Cato blog is that of Vásquez’s defense, or rather the lack thereof, of the funding of this research. Rather than discuss where the funding for research in COVID-19 vaccinations truly came from, he attempts to paint it as if it were purely a market phenomenon! In the Spanish edition of the blog, Vásquez adds two additional short paragraphs:

Global capital markets provided the necessary financing to these companies. Moderna was founded last decade as a private company with $40 million in venture capital funding; It then raised US$2.7 billion, then went public in 2018.

BioNTech raised hundreds of millions of dollars through global private stock listings before going public. As a giant multinational corporation, Pfizer was able to fund the $2 billion in testing, production and distribution of the vaccine out of its own pocket.

This portrayal is almost meant to paint the funding of this venture as mostly, if not all, by private capital. That ignores the massive stake that the government provided. Operation Warp Speed, as begun under Donald Trump, “invested” $12 billion in vaccine development; $2 billion was sent to Pfizer specifically, and over $4 billion to Moderna (the rest was distributed to other vaccine companies). The US government then spent $30 billion purchasing vaccines from these companies, $25 billion of which went to Pfizer.

The production of these vaccines was not done by pure consumer demand but rather by the expropriation of taxpayer money. There are, of course, two avenues for this. Taxation is the most direct. The state extracted wealth from taxpayers, who are no longer able to spend their funds elsewhere.

This is similar to Frédéric Bastiat’s “unseen,” or as Per Bylund dubs it, “the unrealized.” Lines of production that may have been undertaken are halted by the expropriation of these people by taxation. Much the same can be said about inflation. Inflating away to pay for these vaccines results in the ever-dreaded Cantillon effect, as well as the devaluing of the general currency. Those receiving the newly created currency benefit first, meaning, of course, the vaccine companies.

But that need not be the only line of attack against so-called claims that Operation Warp Speed was some free market venture. They may laude the supposed deregulation given to companies and the cutting of red tape as some evidence that it is a free market result, yet that hardly seems to be the case. The deregulation was only temporary and for a select few contracted companies.

To a Rothbardian, a monopoly means only that of a government-granted right. Police are monopolies on law enforcement. The post office is a monopoly. The British East India Company was long a monopoly. However, one could very well make the case for the concept of a “captured market.” This could likely be defined as a market through which regulation is used to stifle competition. This is done through the lobbying of the political body for regulations that drive up compliance costs for their newer competitors.

These vaccine manufacturers were given the near-exclusive right to produce treatments. In fact, other treatments were actively barred or lobbied against by the government itself. One need only look at the condemnation of Ivermectin after its popularization by Joe Rogan. Legally, unless a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, patients are not allowed to use it. Potential treatments for COVID-19 may have gone undiscovered because of overregulation. This regulation was excused and fast-tracked only for these vaccine manufacturers. That’s hardly free market, is it?

Perhaps the most damning of them all to the “free market effort” argument is the legal immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers. Since the Reagan administration, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has existed to provide compensation to those injured by a vaccine on the childhood vaccine schedule. Rather than the traditional tort law system in which those injured would be able to bring lawsuits against the manufacturer, they are compensated out of a fund. This fund is paid for by a tax on each vaccine. Thus, so long as the vaccination is on the schedule, there is no reason for specific liability over possible damages of a vaccine. Thus, absent true common law liability, the vaccine manufacturers are incentivized to act recklessly and get their vaccines to be granted this legal immunity.

However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not met this designation yet. These vaccines were granted special legal immunity under the PREP Act. This special immunity is set to expire in 2024, leaving two avenues for the manufacturers: lobby for a further reinstatement of the PREP Act protections or have their treatment placed on the children’s vaccine schedule. Otherwise, they face liability for the danger of their product. The latter seems to be the approach of Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration, which has added the COVID-19 vaccine to the 2023 vaccine schedule recommendations. The whole operation reeks of cronyism.

Every step of the manufacturing process is a deadly reminder of cronyism. It is funded by the taxpayer through taxation or inflation, both of which rob the market of genuine human economic action. The privileges of this expropriation are then given to a chosen few, and even those who would offer true market goods are prevented from providing them. Finally, it is then protected from any semblance of error by the government. At every step, the cronyists, who can lobby the government by any means they wish, protect their bottom dollar at the true expense of the citizenry. These vaccines are not a “free market miracle” but rather another sad product of cronyism.

David Brady is a Catholic libertarian and economics and finance undergraduate student at Florida Southern College. He is a co-host of the “Econphonics” podcast and a Mises Apprentice.

David Brady, Jr. | Mises Wire

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

The post COVID-19 Vaccinations Are Not a Free Market Victory appeared first on Granite Grok.

Several of our contributors have made this case. Biden is done. It is his last dance. The DNC is going through the motions to nominate him before he ‘falls ill’ (or just falls) so they can anoint his replacement before the general election.

But the political world isn’t acting like that, and a recent poll has inspired a collective dirtying of progressive diapers.

 

Voters in battleground states said they trusted Donald J. Trump over President Biden on the economy, foreign policy and immigration, as Mr. Biden’s multiracial base shows signs of fraying.

President Biden is trailing Donald J. Trump in five of the six most important battleground states one year before the 2024 election, suffering from enormous doubts about his age and deep dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy and a host of other issues, new polls by The New York Times and Siena College have found.

The results show Mr. Biden losing to Mr. Trump, his likeliest Republican rival, by margins of four to 10 percentage points among registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Mr. Biden is ahead only in Wisconsin, by two percentage points, the poll found.

 

Across the increasingly fruitless plain, Biden looks bad, but not that bad. Several of the gaps are well within the Left’s ability to compensate. And while the peasants are restless about many things, they say the economy will define their choice. And while Donald Trump may trounce his GOP primary challengers, his numbers against a generic Democrat in a general election are not great, which is important.

We need to remember that the Democrat experts suggesting Biden needs to step back all answer to Barry Obama. This poll and their reactions are less about framing the likely loss by Biden and more about preparing the post-nomination battle space for Biden’s departure. Democrat primary voters don’t choose the nominee; delegates and super-delegates do that. The system is fixed to ensure the Party Bosses get who they want -just ask Bernie Sanders.

Biden will be the nominee at the convention, but he will not be the general election candidate, and everything from now until then is stagecraft.

We can debate who the producers of this political theater might be, but Barry Obama has to be on that list. So, the real question isn’t how well Biden is doing in swing states or what Democrats will do in the wake of Biden’s declining popularity. They’ve already decided. The question is, who they will announce to replace Nominee Biden and when.

 

 

HT | Ace

The post What if Trump’s Swing State Lead Over Biden Grows to More Votes Than The Democrats Can Steal? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Pro-Palestinian demonstrations or marches are growing in size and intensity. They are worldwide and in every major city in America. As the number of gatherings increases, the purpose and motivation of the participants become more confusing. Is their presence a show of support for Hamas or the Palestinians or a condemnation of Israel and the Jews?

The signs and banners are many, with messages like Let Gaza Live, End the Seige of Gaza, Free Palestine, Stop US-Funded Genocide, and Genocide Joe, We will vote you out. Over 450 organizations have endorsed the march, says the International People’s Assembly. In addition to an “immediate ceasefire,” the protesters are also calling for an end to US military aid to Israel and an end to the blockade on Gaza.

For the most part, these demonstrations have been peaceful, although I do not call the burning of American and Israeli flags peaceful. There are members of Congress who are stirring the anti-Israel rhetoric, and I find it hard to believe these people are representing the feelings of their constituents.

The Squad, primarily Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), have been tireless in their anti-Israel rants. Let’s call it what it is – antisemitic statements that are meant to rile their pro-Palestinian or even pro-Hamas followers. It is one thing to have differences in this country. Our government was designed to have the checks and balances of opposing views. But there are times and situations where there is not a lot of room for debate, and the beheading of children, raping of women, and burning people alive should not require a lot of discussion for people with morals to see the wrong.

But it is not only complicated but impossible to acknowledge these atrocities by Hamas for Omar and Tlaib. They still see Israel, which was attacked on October 7 and lost over one thousand innocents to this barbaric tribe, as the oppressor. They have no problem supporting a group with the mantra, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That phrase has only one meaning, which is the obliteration of Israel and Jews. Tell me how these people are different from Adolph Hitler and his movement the world vowed would never happen again.

I have not been a fan of Hakeem Jeffries and do not understand his high status in the Democrat Party. He is the Minority Leader of the House, but other than his integral role in the harassment and impeachment of Donald Trump, I do not see his value to his Party. I watched him sit through the weeks of turmoil as the Republicans sought a compromise individual to replace Speaker McCarthy with this pompous Cheshire smirk on his face, obviously enjoying the opposition’s dysfunction. He can show leadership by getting these Squad members to tone down the rhetoric. If they want to be activists for Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim people who want to eradicate Israel, then they should resign their seats and join the ignorant college students protesting on campuses nationwide.

I am not talking about censorship or shutting down differences in opinion. What Omar and Tlaib are doing is anti-American and anti-Semitic, and will lead to violence and danger to Americans. These protests are getting more extensive and passionate, and it is just a matter of time before that passion turns to altercation. These two women are condoning atrocities and inciting violence. Is this not a situation in which a leader needs to rise and shut it down? Jeffries needs to turn the smirk into a scowl and get these women to understand their responsibilities to Congress, America, and, most importantly, their constituents. To sit back and do nothing, Jeffries is condoning and complicit in their words and actions.

 

The post Hakeem Jeffries, Stand Up And Shut Them Down appeared first on Granite Grok.

Over the weekend, I attended the Save the Children rally at the statehouse.  I made some brief remarks, which are approximated below.

The envelope I’m holding here is labeled with an X.  It identifies a government project, but we don’t know what it is.  It’s to help some group of people, but we don’t know who.  All we know is that it will be funded with a big pile of tax money.  Maybe maybe $10 million, or $100 million, or even more.

I have a couple of questions for you.

First, who thinks that this money will end up mostly in the hands of people who are good at getting their hands on tax money?

Second, who thinks that this money won’t end up helping the people it’s supposed to help, and may even end up hurting them?

See?  To know the answers to these questions, we don’t have to know what the project is, or who the people it’s supposed to help are, or how much money will be involved.

We all know what has to happen.

And we know why it has to happen that way.

If you’re spending tax money, it makes whatever you’re doing inherently political.

This means that the people who will end up spending the money will be the people who are the most motivated, the best organized, and often the least principled about spending other people’s money on their own agendas — whether they are politicians, or bureaucrats appointed by politicians, or just politically connected individuals.

Again, we don’t have to know the details to know that all of this is true.

But let’s open the envelope.

Oh, look — it turns out that X is the public school system. The people to be helped are 180,000 students. The amount to be spent is about $3.6 billion per year.

Does this change your mind?  In spite of what you just demonstrated that you know, do you want to believe that this will work out differently?

A lot of people do, and it’s why we’re in the situation we’re in.  It’s why we’re here today, at a rally to protect children from institutions that were originally set up to help them.

As the street artist Bansky noted, what all of us — including kids — really need is to be protected against all the measures that are taken to protect us.

We’re here because against all logic and experience, people continue to think that they can send their kids to inherently political institutions, and get non-political results — that they can avoid having things like CRT, DEI, mixed-sex sports and bathrooms, secret pronouns, and pornography in schools; and that they’ll actually get things like literacy, numeracy, and rationality.

Every few years, a competition is held.  Students from top engineering schools like MIT, Stanford, Purdue, Caltech, and so on, show up to look at something that seems to be a working perpetual motion machine.

They can’t touch it, or take it apart, but they can look at it from a distance, and make remote measurements.  And they’re supposed to figure out why it doesn’t actually work.

What these students know ahead of time is that it can’t actually work, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  What they don’t know is why it isn’t really an example of perpetual motion.  They have to figure that out.

But there is no chance that it actually works.  No matter how much they’d like it to.  No matter how much the world would benefit if it did.

And in exactly the same way, there is no chance that tax-funded institutions won’t end up being run by people who will use them primarily to advance their political and personal agendas, often at the expense of the people they’re supposed to be helping.

No matter how much we’d like them to.  No matter how much the world would benefit if they did.

We might call this the Second Law of Politics.  And it applies to schools, as it does in every other area.

All of which is to say: If you want to protect your kids, stop sending them to inherently political institutions and hoping for non-political results.

And stop wasting your time, energy, money, and passion trying to ‘fix’ those institutions by using statutes and departmental regulations to ‘force’ them to act in ways that are simply contrary to their natures.

Because that’s the political equivalent of trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

 

The post The Second Law of Politics appeared first on Granite Grok.

The specter of the assisted-suicide-to-orga- donation pipeline has again raised its unethical head. A story out of Belgium has people lining up to take sides and ask questions after a 16-year-old girl approved for euthanasia had her organs tested and then harvested.

 

In an October commentary piece for Epoch Times, patient rights champion, author, and podcast host Wesley J. Smith wrote about several countries where “shortage of organs for transplantation is threatening to unleash immoral and unethical remedies,” as assisted suicide threatens to become a too-profitable source for organs. He mentioned the example of a 16-year-old Belgian girl who requested assisted suicide due to a brain tumor — and agreed to have her organs harvested. The teen spent 36 hours sedated and intubated in an ICU for the “examination” of her organs. After that she was euthanized, and her organs were harvested.

 

We’ve slipped down this slope before on these pages. Canada, also mentioned in the linked piece, has widened the net of situations where you can ask to die while making “living” that much more difficult. It’s as if they want people to ask to kill themselves.

 

Canada’s socialized healthcare system is notorious for its protracted wait times for even the most basic tests. I can’t imagine the lockdowns, which kept millions from planned visits, treatments, or surveillance exams, have helped matters. And then there is the rise in mental health suicides. In other words, the government has, well and good, mucked it up. You can’t get the treatment you want or need. This results in an increased number of people feeling trapped in mental or physical illness. (…)

 

 

And then, they ask them if they will donate their organs. In the case of the Belgian teen, Smith is reported as observing that,

 

First, this was a minor terrified of decline who stated that by donating organs, she believed she could do some good. But for that option, she might not have made that decision.

Second, as far as we know, the girl wasn’t provided suicide prevention services nor assured that palliative care could alleviate her symptoms.

Third, the lengthy sedation and intubation to which she was subjected weren’t for her benefit, but to allow her organs to be tested and find compatible recipients. In other words, at least in some sense, once the girl asked to donate her organs, her body parts became more important than her life.

 

It has been suggested – just a few hours north of me – that the economically disadvantaged should get access to MAiD. It is an idea that is trending among ethicists ot such a degree that we should expect Inigo Montoya to leap into the room and tell us that the word ethicist does not mean what they think it means.

Infamous bioethicist Peter Singer thinks people should be killed for their organs, which must have the organ harvesters at Planned Parenthood grinning from ear to ear. If it is dying anyway, let’s make something good come from it, and ironically, the two are not far apart morally. If the government can sanction aborting humans at any age for their organs, aborting babies late-term to harvest theirs can’t be an ethical dilemma.

Who among us cannot picture women getting paid to carry babies to be aborted in the third trimester for their organs?

Note to those who thought we were a bit over the top when we call pro-abortion progressives the party of death.

 

Smith explained that Singer and those who agree with him aim “unscientifically [to] redefine death from a biological state of nonbeing into a sociological status of lesser value, equivalent to ‘as good as dead.’” And where have we heard that before? From the Nazis who committed the Holocaust, having set themselves up as arbiters of which lives were valuable.

 

It is the slipperiest of slopes, especially when the State has the power to define your mental health and massage the circumstances until more of us fit into the assisted suicide box they’ve created so some campaign donor can profit from a new natural resource for the organ harvesting market.

Talk about a threat to vulnerable populations.

And I want to think this is a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is already happening, just not here.

Or should I say, not yet?

 

The post Slippery Meet Slope: When You are Worth More Dead Than Alive appeared first on Granite Grok.

Alina Habba response to the Judge saying I’m not here to hear what he has to say: “Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney and why exactly are taxpayers dollars being used in this court room. The... Tom Bowler

We should learn a valuable lesson from a Democrat who recently learned a lesson. Long-time Dem billionaire does an about-face on Trump, admits the left has been blinded by TDS.

Democrat billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya, who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, admits that he now appreciates what former President Donald Trump accomplished during his time in the White House. “What those guys did was pretty incredible,” Palihapitiya noted.

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

He also said that Trump Derangement Syndrome caused more damage than Trump ever did because it caused people to not see his good work. “So much of the work that happened in that administration turned out to have been right, and that is what is so frustrating for me.”

“The work on the border wall, we didn’t like the messenger, so, we killed the message. Turned out it was right,” Palihapitiya noted. “Issuing long-term debt to refinance when rates were at zero. We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. A structural peace deal in the Middle East. We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. When are we going to stop shooting ourselves in the foot? When are we going to actually take the time to look past who was saying things and actually listen to them word for word?”

The lesson for us is not just that Trump accomplished many good things. Many of us already knew that.<

A larger lesson is that the Message matters much more than the Messenger. Or to put it another way, Policy matters much more than Personality. We should campaign on the basis of Policies, not Personalities. Our policies are better than the Democrats’ – our policies produce better results for the people. We should work to persuade people to choose which policies will make their lives better and to then vote for the candidate who espouses the better policies. One Democrat changed his mind all on his own by thinking about policy. Imagine how many more Democrats would change their minds if we worked to persuade them to think about Policies, not Personalities. Part II will have more thoughts about campaign strategy emphasizing Policies, not Personalities.

The post We Should Learn a Lesson – Part I appeared first on Granite Grok.

Election fraud is making headlines in three Democratic states – Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. In Connecticut, the situation took a dramatic turn as allegations of fraud led to a court-ordered new primary election.

Bridgeport Superior Court Judge William Clark decided to overturn the results of a Democratic mayoral primary due to claims of absentee ballot abuse. What prompted this decision? Well, it all began when a video surfaced online, seemingly showing a supporter of the incumbent Democrat Mayor Joe Ganim, stuffing stacks of papers into a ballot drop box.

Meanwhile, over in Massachusetts, a Democratic mayoral candidate is facing accusations of bribing residents to vote. City officials in Springfield claim they witnessed voters being brought to City Hall for early voting, with some expecting cash in return for voting for Democratic candidate Justin Hurst.

New Jersey has its share of election fraud cases as well. State Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office announced state election fraud charges related to mail-in ballots and voter registrations in the 2020 and 2021 elections. Paterson City Council President Alex Mendez (D) faces additional charges in a 2020 election fraud case. Allegations suggest that Mendez’s campaign collected unsealed ballots, inspected them to determine if they were cast for him, and replaced those that weren’t. These replacement ballots allegedly came from voters’ mailboxes, painting a concerning picture of voter manipulation.

Mendez’s response to the charges has been one of defense, claiming that the accusations are unjust and only brought because previous charges weren’t progressing as expected.

Another Democratic candidate in New Jersey and a former candidate for Plainfield mayor in 2021, Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim, found himself charged with “election fraud and other crimes.” According to the state’s Attorney General, Ibezim instructed his associates to complete blank voter registration applications and deliver nearly 1,000 of them to a post office.

Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim has been charged with several crimes related to election fraud. These include:

• Election fraud is a second-degree crime.
• Criminal attempt to commit false registration or transfer, a third-degree crime.
• Tampering with public records is a third-degree crime.
• Forgery is a third-degree crime.
• Hindering apprehension or prosecution, a third-degree crime.
• Falsifying or tampering with records is a fourth-degree crime.

These charges stem from an Office of Public Integrity and Accountability’s (OPIA) Corruption Bureau investigation. Ibezim allegedly directed associates and campaign volunteers to complete blank voter registration applications based on forms with voter information he provided to the group. He then allegedly brought a large white garbage bag filled with nearly 1,000 of these fake voter registration applications to the post office to mail to the Union County Commissioner of Registration.

The investigation into Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim’s alleged election fraud and other related crimes fits into the larger context of election fraud in New Jersey in several ways:

• The election fraud cases in New Jersey, including those involving mail-in voting, are relatively rare and often easy to detect. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Paterson scandal, which involved allegations of mail-in voting fraud, was not the norm but rather an exception.
• The investigation into Ibezim’s alleged crimes is part of a broader effort to uphold the integrity of the democratic process in New Jersey. The Attorney General’s office has proactively addressed these allegations, as seen in the case of Alex Mendez and other politicians.
• The allegations of election fraud in New Jersey have been a topic of national discussion, with President Donald Trump using the Paterson scandal to argue against mail-in voting. This has highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the voting process.
• The election fraud cases in New Jersey, including those involving mail-in voting, have shown that even when such incidents occur, they are typically easy to detect and prosecute. This suggests that while the threat of election fraud exists, the safeguards in place to prevent it are effective.
• The allegations of election fraud in New Jersey have also highlighted the importance of voter registration and the process of voting. In the case of Ibezim, the alleged crime involved submitting voter registration applications for people who were not eligible to vote.

The incident involving absentee ballot abuse in Connecticut is an unusual case specific to Bridgeport, a working-class city known for its history of voting irregularities. This activity is often called “ballot harvesting,” where campaign workers or volunteers visit potential voters, encourage them to fill out absentee ballots, and then collect and submit them on their behalf. However, this kind of collection effort is banned in Connecticut, raising concerns about the integrity of the election process.

To provide some context, these election-related criminal cases aren’t isolated incidents. There have been at least three such cases nationwide, with two involving this year’s elections and two related to prior elections. As for the future, a new primary date is yet to be set in Connecticut. Judge Clark has given lawyers a 10-day window to work with city and state election officials to determine a potential date for the new election.

The post Election Fraud Investigations Against Democrats Underway in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey appeared first on Granite Grok.

One of the things that often goes under the radar is the appointment and confirmation of federal judges. The process is near constant, but unless the appointee came from a Republican, the media shows little interest, but the bench continues to be a front in the war on liberty whether we are watching or not.

I’m as guilty as anyone. With such a target-rich environment, it is easy to leave this one to Congress, which is the last thing any of us should do. But we do it—most of the time. Every now and again, a name rises to the surface of the noise that is so good or so bad we take notice.

Or we stumble over it on X (still pronounced Twitter).

Ted Cruz shared a clip of himself (he is a politician) talking about “Biden’s pick to be the Judge for the District of Oregon.” Mustafa Kasubhai (he says) “is an outright Marxist” who “has written love letters about communism.”

Team Biden isn’t even being coy. But Kasubhai has been on the bench in Oregon for at least five years. He is supported by all the left people, probably because he is on a mission to redefine property. He likes Marxism, and that’s Marxism. The State owns it all. You own nothing. Not even yourself.

I can only assume he is a fan of asset forfeiture.

Here is Senator Cruz spelling it out for the cheap seats.

 

Biden’s pick to be the Judge for the District of Oregon, Mustafa Kasubhai, is an outright Marxist.

He has written love letters about communism and wants to redefine property.

Communism is not theoretical—in Cuba, my family suffered under it. pic.twitter.com/TqdF7sblnk

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 5, 2023

The post A Guy Writing Love Letters to Marxism Might not be the Best Candidate to be a Federal Judge appeared first on Granite Grok.