It is Back to School time across the country. Thousands of students will be returning to the classroom in the next few weeks to begin the 2023-24 school year. In addition to preparing our students to return to school, filling out a million forms, buying that perfect backpack and stocking up on glue sticks, colored pencils and boxes of Kleenex, parents can prepare themselves for the new school year by becoming familiar with some key parental rights federal laws.

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), is a federal law that gives parents the right to inspect curriculum. Any school that receives federal funding must adhere to the PPRA. Under this law, parents can request to review the curriculum that will be used in their child’s classroom and the school must comply.  Another important feature of the PPRA is the requirement for schools to allow parents to opt their child out of certain types of invasive surveys. (RELATED: SUZANNE DOWNING: One Of America’s Greatest Role Models Snubbed By Woke School District)

An opt-out must be available to parents when surveys venture into any of the following eight topics: 1) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; 2) mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family; 3) sex behavior or attitudes; 4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior; 5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships; 6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; 7) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent; or 8) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such a program). If these types of questions are asked in a school-provided survey, the parent must be given the opportunity to opt their child out.

 

 

 

Alongside the PPRA, any school that receives federal funding must adhere to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). According to the United States Department of Education, “FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level.”

The following rights are available to parents under FERPA: 1) the right to inspect student’s educational records, often referred to as the “Official Student Record”; 2) the right to request incorrect records be amended if they are inaccurate or misleading; 3) the right to request a formal hearing if the records are not amended; 4) the right to request a statement be placed in the student’s file if the school decided not to amend the record; and 5) the right to expect schools to maintain the privacy of school records. (RELATED: JOHN STOSSEL: College Is A Scam)

It must not be forgotten students and parents have the right to free speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects students from compelled speech – this means the school cannot force your child to affirm certain ideology, nor can the school police speech off campus. Many districts have begun implementing Bias Reporting Systems, encouraging students and staff to report speech they deem to be offensive or inappropriate. These systems are sure to face First Amendment challenges.

The first day of school is always filled with anticipation and endless possibilities for the upcoming year. It is crucial for parents to familiarize themselves with their rights under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the free speech protections under the First Amendment. By doing so, parents can ensure increased transparency, understanding and a positive educational experience for their children.

 

Marissa Fallon | Daily Caller News Service

Marissa Fallon is Director of Advocacy at Parents Defending Education.

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

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

 

The post What Every Parent Needs to Know for Back-To-School … appeared first on Granite Grok.

The constitutional and economic ramifications of California’s Proposition 12, which banned the sale in California of pork from pigs held in tight confinement, are profound for the American swine industry.

The US Supreme Court’s refusal to strike down the law opens the door to challenges on other grounds, but also myriad extensions of in-state regulation that dramatically impact the commerce of other states beyond pork or other food production. With the regulations specifically impacting swine going into effect at the end of July 2023, all components of the regulation are now in force. On the surface, the newly enacted rules appear to address animal welfare. Still, the broader implications of Proposition 12 for national and international commerce – and states’ rights under the U.S. Constitution – are genuinely seismic.

Proposition 12, and Other Pork

Gestation crates are widely employed in the American pork industry to confine sows. This prevents the mothers from eating or inadvertently crushing young piglets, preventing mortality and increasing profitability. It also assists in animal management for disease treatment and prevention.

Animal rights activists in California advanced Proposition 12 to ban the practice, prohibiting the sale of swine products that contain pig parts from confined sows or their progeny. In the name of sparing sows from discomfort, however, more piglets will likely die – an odd moral trade-off. Indeed, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, “according to various amici, some of the scientific literature suggests that California’s requirements could worsen animal health and welfare. See, e.g., Brief for American Association of Swine Veterinarians as Amicus Curiae 4–19 …”

Economic Impacts on Pork Industry and Consumer Prices

California consumes a hefty 13% of US Pork, 99.87% of which is imported. Proposition 12 is unusual because it regulates the production and husbandry practices of other states, including the dispatch of California inspectors across the country to verify compliance. Facility transitions will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, many jobs are imperiled outside of California, and consumer prices are expected to rise.

For national US pork producers to participate in California’s markets, they must either trace animals that comply with the new law’s requirements versus those that don’t or convert their entire operations to meet California’s demands. Excluding the Golden State from distribution is untenable for most businesses, though Smithfield Foods has cut ties and is closing California operations. The nation’s costs of swine production will rise substantially, undermining international competitiveness for the US pork industry against products from nations lacking similar restrictions.

Proposition 12 and the US Constitution

What is unusual about California’s law is that, however well-intentioned, it extends into the realm of regulating activities in other states, which is directly counter to the federalist system. After unilaterally imposing its good intentions on the rest of America and its economy in the form of increased costs, will California send envoys to foreign nations with measuring tapes to inspect pig crate areas and processing facilities?

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the United States Supreme Court dismissed a pork industry challenge to Proposition 12. Since the federal government has not regulated this area of commerce, the Court reasoned, states are free to impose restrictions within their own borders. In a complex alignment of opinions and partial dissents, the Court essentially sanctioned California’s scheme as constitutionally non-violative.

Notably, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent emphasized the incursion into states’ rights this decision threatens, writing: “The State has aggressively propounded a ‘California knows best’ economic philosophy—where California in effect seeks to regulate pig farming and pork production in all of the United States. California’s approach undermines federalism and the authority of individual States by forcing individuals and businesses in one State to conduct their farming, manufacturing, and production practices in a manner required by the laws of a different State.”

Proposition 12 may seem a sensible ethical course, but it is a Trojan Horse into the citadel of states’ rights. It’s pigs’ rights today, but what cross-boundary regulations will now follow? Justice Kavanaugh recounts examples in his Ross dissent, concluding: “California’s law thus may foreshadow a new era where States shutter their markets to goods produced in a way that offends their moral or policy preferences—and in doing so, effectively force other States to regulate in accordance with those idiosyncratic state demands. That is not the Constitution the Framers adopted in Philadelphia in 1787.”

The British Gammon Experience

The American push to improve swine welfare bears contrasts with the British experience. That nation implemented swine housing regulations before the European Union, and the UK breeding pig population has declined more than 50% since 1997. The Guardian reported:

“The UK moved more quickly than other European countries in banning the practice of keeping pregnant sows in narrow stalls or chains throughout their pregnancies … The EU didn’t ban the practice until 2013. The hope had been that shoppers and retailers would support higher welfare pig meat. Instead, UK pig meat imports from Denmark rose by 50% and from Germany by 400% between 1997 and 2007.”

Had California, like the UK, simply imposed its pig protection strictures on its own turf, it would have undermined only its own producers, of which there are almost none. Like the EU, the federal government might one day regulate porcine welfare and preempt California’s effort with its own. In the interim, California’s progressive initiative will dominate national production. Pork prices there have already nearly doubled, and supplies are becoming scarce. Doubtless, this will encourage yet more Americans to flee that crumbling state.

The Ross decision frees California to tyrannize Iowa, North Carolina, and other pork-producing states with its animal ethics. But it also frees Iowa to ban almonds or other products that consume too much precious groundwater: California’s groundwater territorially, but Iowa’s to govern by morality. Or perhaps in 2025, Vermont will require all pork sold in the state to come from pigs that get ten hours of sunshine daily, listen to Public Radio, and dine on Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at least once weekly. Then we will see what the Supreme Court has to say about states regulating the lands and commercial activities of other states.

 

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

The post Does California’s Proposition 12 Threaten States’ Rights? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Governor Sununu has an on-and-off relationship with constitutional limitations on his power. When he feels the urge to invoke them, it’s a speed-dial booty call, but when they get in his way, he kicks them to the curb (without cab fare). And he’d do anything to stop Donald Trump from getting the nomination.

Consider that commitment as you read this.

 

[New Hampshire] Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

 

Are those letters subject to RSA 91a, the Granite State’s Right-to-Know Law, because “several letters” sounds to me like from Chris Sununu. Or maybe they are from his “girlfriend in Canada.”

Sketchy. Suspicious, dubious, fishy.

It would put His Excellency in the same category as Gavin Newsom or Kathy Hochul.

The Democratic process, the foundation of our system of government, appears poised to produce a result with which we disagree. How can I stop that?

It’s election meddling, and I’d bet money Chris Sununu has had conversations behind closed doors with Scanlan’s office, if not Scanlan himself, about shadows or penumbras that could keep Trump off the Ballot.

My advice?

Go ahead and try it.

You’ll be hand-counting write-ins for days: It’ll look like Iowa for the Dems a few years back. Um, yeah, sorry, we don’t know who one yet.

 

The New York Post (post) primary debate (at which Trump did not appear) shows his lead widening to 52 points: Trump 61, DeSantis 9, Ramaswamy 5, Pence 5, Haley 2, Scott 3, Christie 1, Hutchinson, Burgum, Elder, Hurd 0.

Insider advantage has Trump with a 27-point lead two days after. Trump 45, DeSantis 18, Ramaswamy 7, Pence 2, Haley 11, Scott 3, Christie 4, Hutchinson 1, Burgum 1, Elder 1, Hurd 1.

Morning Consults Poll Results (44-points ahead): Trump 58, DeSantis 14, Ramaswamy 11, Pence 6, Haley 3, Scott 3, Christie 4, Hutchinson 0, Burgum 0, Elder, Hurd 0.

 

Trump running in New Hampshire is good for political tourism. You may not like him, but he will draw a small fortune that fills hotels and restaurants and lights a fire under the local economy. Trump on the Ballot is good for New Hampshire.

But go ahead and tell me that DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Scott, or Christie will make up the difference. All combined, they are less exciting or of interest than Donald Trump. And maybe that’s the answer. Perhaps what Secretary of State Scanlan needs is “several” more letters (from actual Republicans) suggesting to him that taking Trump off the Ballot would be a bad idea.

Here is the email address: elections@sos.nh.gov.

Reminder: Be polite. No one gains anything in this circumstance by being an obnoxious douche, and make sure to include your name and town so they know you’re from New Hampshire.

 

Update:

“[…] New Hampshire attorney Bryant “Corky” Messner, whom Trump previously endorsed in New Hampshire’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, is apparently responsible for getting the idea on Scanlan’s radar. Messner recently announced plans to sue to ensure Scanlan enforces the Fourteenth Amendment against Trump.

“I really don’t view myself as turning on Trump, as odd as that sounds,” Messner told ABC News. “I love this country. I’ve served this country. I’ve taken an oath to this country. My sons are serving right now and I believe someone’s got to step up to defend the Constitution.”

“Someone needs to take some action legally so this thing can get in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later to interpret this section,” he added.

Scanlan’s office confirmed Messner and Scanlan met Friday to discuss Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment but announced the secretary of state will meet with the state attorney general before making any decisions.[…]”

 

Just the other day, I was wondering what Corky had been up to these days. Now I know. And how close are Sununu and Messner? I have no idea but I’m having a hard time accepting that after years of TDS, His Excellency isn’t somehow involved.

I’m clinging. I admit it.

 

The post Is Chris Sununu Pressuring Sec-o-State David Scanlan to Block Trump from NH’s Primary Ballot? [Update] appeared first on Granite Grok.

Councilor Wheeler:

Even though you have never answered any of my previous emails, which include pleas to reject the federal money that nine people were arrested over on 10/13/21 and the bad judge appointments of Gordon MacDonald and Anne Edwards, I am emailing you once again to go on record that I oppose the appointment of DJ Bettencourt, someone who doesn’t even come from the insurance business.

Bettencourt was in the news last year for a domestic violence arrest that you can read about here. The charges were later dropped after he was placed on “administrative leave” for about seven weeks. It’s unclear if such time was paid (at our expense, mind you) or not, and it is unclear what caused the charges to be dropped, but I want to focus on an issue that I find even more important regarding public servants, and that’s dishonesty.

Admittedly, I was a low-information voter in 2012 and did not know who Bettencourt was at the time. Nine years later, and while receiving a campground firewood delivery, I had an interesting conversation with the owner, Senator Giuda’s brother Brandon. Brandon had served as a representative at the time of the scandal involving Bettencourt lying about his law school work. I won’t get into the minutia of the story, so I’ll refer you to this link, and encourage you to contact Brandon with any follow-up questions you might have.

I would have otherwise not noticed this appointment had I not been on the executive council page looking for something else. When I saw his name, I vividly recalled my talk with Brandon and how he said he took a lot of crap from the “establishment elite,” including Old Man Sununu, for speaking up as a whistleblower. “Nothing to see here; don’t make such a big deal,” was their message.

Last night, I emailed Brandon at his campground in Lancaster to point out the upcoming hearing on September 6 just in case he’s enjoying his post-Concord life too much to be on top of such things. He answered within the hour, thanking me for reaching out and reiterating what he had said to me two years ago, among other stuff, and that he would not be at the hearing.

What I also learned was that Bettencourt has never had an ordinary private-sector job. While being a “Republican Ed Markey,” or as Howie Carr would say, “Mr Frosty,” does not make one a criminal, public distrust in government is at an all-time high. Dishonesty should never be tolerated in public servants, elected or appointed, on either side of the aisle.

Please do the right thing and put an end to this bureaucrat’s career that has no relevance to what’s on his resume that can be verified. It would be a good effort to right the ship and work towards redemption.

 

The post An Open letter to Executive Councilor Dave Wheeler (on the “Appointment” of DJ Bettencourt). appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s wicked expensive living near or around the City of Boston, so what are poor Harvard Grad Students to do when an institution with a 53 billion dollar endowment leaves them to fend for themselves? The cure is to sign them up for SNAP, the federal food assistance program.

 

The Health Services office sent a flier to graduate students, encouraging them to participate in the SNAP Benefits Sign-Up event in April. The flier read, “Fuel your body & stock your pantry. Did you know that grad students may qualify for assistance paying for food & groceries?”

 

Students paying Harvard-level tuition are destined (more than likely) for one-percenter jobs – if they even need to work – living at a university that could feed the entire student body like Kings and queens without blinking an eye need your money for food assistance. Few things could sound more backward. And according to Yahoo! Finance they get paid 40K a year which might admittedly isn’t much given the location.

But still. The optics and that goes both ways.

Times are so tough that Harvard grad students can’t afford to eat.

 

Approximately 30% of Harvard’s grad students are international, so they are ineligible to apply for SNAP. This means that the solution presented by the university fails to support about one-third of its graduate students adequately.

 

The solution to that seems simple enough. Leave and sneak back across the southern border. You’ll get a nice hotel room and free meals.

 

The post Harvard Grad Students Are Eligible for SNAP? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin was the site of this year’s first Republican Primary Debate and the raucous crowd of cheese-loving patriots were not disappointed as the candidates squeezed plenty of cheesy moments out for them and some 13 million Americans watching from home.

Among those qualifying for the stage were former Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, former Vice President Mike Pence, Governor of Florida Ron Desantis, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, billionaire entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and a guy from North Dakota named Doug.

Not in attendance at the debate was President Donald Trump, who currently enjoys a 62% approval rating among Republican voters.  This is forty-six points against his closest competitor Ron Desantis (16%) and just shy of the number of charges brought against him by Democrats in Georgia, New York, Florida, and the District of Columbia.  Trump chose not to bolster his opponents by instead being interviewed by former Fox top-rated television personality Tucker Carlson.

The moderators for the event were Fox News Martha McCollum and Brett Baier, who doubled as nannies for the unruly crowd and candidates at times threatening to put them in time-out and once even suggesting Mike Pence might need a spanking if he kept interrupting.

The fireworks came early and often as Vivek Ramaswamy’s opening comments included levying an insult to all seven candidates as “bought and paid for,” which drew cheers and jeers from the audience. This led to former V.P. Mike Pence calling him a “rookie” and stating, “running the country isn’t the same as running your gas station Apu,” at which point the gloves were off.

Mrs. Haley, clad in a light-blue afro-cotton blazer from Martha Stewart’s new Martha’s Vineyard line, began by chiding the field for their irresponsible spending of American tax-payer money. Included in this criticism was President Trump, who saw the debt increase by nearly a trillion dollars.  After her criticism, the beleaguered President’s numbers went up another two points.

Up next, the candidates were asked about their stance on Ukraine, which all but Ramaswamy supported. Haley again chided the young Harvard grad by reminding him of his lack of experience and accused him of implicitly supporting a “murderer” in Vladimir Putin. She finished by reminding the listeners that Ukraine is a “pro-American country” and, without a hint of irony, that “we paid good money for that,” motioning to her coterie of supporters from Raytheon.

An audience member was then given the chance to ask a carefully-groomed question about climate change being the most important issue for young Americans. Ramaswamy again took the negative position, referring to it as a “hoax.”  This time, Governor Christie took a swing at the young upstart by suggesting Ramaswamy also believed the earth was flat.  The svelte Indian-American must not have heard the comment clearly over the loud roar from the crowd because he responded by saying, “You are fat, Governor Krispy Kreme,” which was followed by a series of “I know you are, but what am I” parries.

The handling of January 6th by Mike Pence became the focus, and candidates were asked if they agreed with his decision to not exercise his white house privilege to recall the vote. A pensive Pence took this moment to remind the American people of his super-double-duper faith in Jesus Christ and oath on the Bible he swore to the Constitution, not Donald Trump (who immediately saw another two-point increase), then broke into a semi-spontaneous rendition of “Amazing Grace” before reminding everyone he stands with Ukraine and recommends we bomb Russia back to the stone ages. This was received by a smattering of applause from his donors at McDonnell-Douglas.

Ron Desantis, when asked his position regarding Pence’s decision, said had “no beef” with the former vice president before reminding everyone how important it is to look forward rather than look back to the political mayhem of January 6th.  He followed this quickly by reciting his record as America’s favorite governor who has single-handedly taken on the tyrannical theme park giant Disney, only to be trolled by the other seven debaters who broke into “It’s A Small World.”  So goofy!

One candidate who was not invited to participate despite garnering the necessary support was Larry Elder. When Banana’s Media asked why he was not allowed to participate, we were told there were already too many white supremacists participating, and they already had Tim Scott.

The avuncular Tim Scott was perhaps the most congenial of the candidates, often pleading with the listener to remember the plight of the poor from whence he came. Quite the American success story, a black man one generation from cotton picking slaves had made it all the way to the senate of the most powerful nation in the land. Fox then ran a commercial at the break celebrating the senator’s heart-warming story with their world-exclusive premiere “Uncle Tim’s Cabin.”

Trump was again brought into focus, which had Governor Krispy up in arms as he reminded the people the conduct of Donald Trump was not only likely criminal but “beneath the office of the presidency,” similar to the location where secret service agents recently found a bag of cocaine.

Finally, an odd line of questioning featured Baier asking Christie if the recent reports on UFO’s were something he would disclose to the American public, however, the cameras panned over to Governor Asa Hutchinson for an uncomfortably long amount of time as did the sideward glances of the other candidates.  Hutchinson’s appeared to glitch momentarily before reminding everyone Donald Trump is a racist, vaulting Mr. Trump up another twelve percentage points putting him at nearly 97% by the close of the evening.

As of the time of publishing the Vegas odds for Trump to win the presidency are now 2-1, which are the same odds of him dying in a plane crash somewhere over Arkansas before November of next year.

 

The post Bananas: Republican Debate Knee Deep In the Cheese State appeared first on Granite Grok.

Vermont Public is playing with words again. A recent piece titled, “Vermont farmers say they need more gov’t help as climate change causes more extreme weather,” almost sounds like Vermont Farmers are saying they need help because of climate change.

After taking one for the team and reading the article, what they meant was that Vermont Public thinks climate change is causing extreme weather. The farmers need help because of that weather, but they only quote one farmer in this story who has anything to say about decarbonization, climate, and farming.

The words “Farmer says …” don’t have the same something-something as “Farmers” (plural). But then, neither does the opinion of a farmer who thinks CO2 is anything but airborne fertilizer that strengthens plants against extreme anything. CO2 is a farmer’s friend whether their farm has plants, animals that eat plants, or both.

The weather has always been a problem for farming long before anyone figured out you could use it (the weather) to scare people into giving up farms (comfort, prosperity, affordable energy, and free markets). Put another way, any farmer concerned with decarbonization should be raising crickets and grubs, which also eat things like plants and fruit.

 

[Norah] Lake produces vegetables and a variety of fruit. She lost about 90% of her apples and all her plums. But she hopes her pledge to reduce 90% of her farm’s carbon emissions by 2028 will inspire other farmers to do the same.

Sweetland has solar power on their roofs, is in the process of transitioning all their equipment to electric and is switching to using biofuel. Lake said events like the freeze remind her why she made the pledge.

 

Lake is living in a fantasy world where her commitment to the precepts of the Climate Cult has successfully offshored emissions up to the point where her green equipment reaches the end of life (sooner than later), or she has an EV vehicle fire that takes out a barn and everything in it. I’m not hoping for that. It’s none of my business if the Lakes spend their money on things they think matter, but that’s not how this works. Solar and EVs are propped up with tax money, manufacturing incentives, tax breaks, and other subsidies to make them almost affordable.

China has a monopoly on solar cells made with dirty coal. EV batteries are impossible to craft without metals open-pit mined by low-wage or slave labor in third-world countries. They are not just offshoring massive amounts of carbon emissions. They enable human rights violations and systemic ecological contamination with other people’s money.

You haven’t decarbonized a damn thing, and if CO2 is the problem, you say, you’re –virtue signaling is making matters worse.

And one more point. If you take money from the state or the Feds and don’t do what they say forever after, guess what other illusion comes tumbling down? The one where you think you still own that farm or control what happens on it.

 

 

The post You Haven’t Decarbonized a Damn Thing appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Make no mistake about it…your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason… I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”—Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting in Maryland v. King

Be warned: the DNA detectives are on the prowl.

Whatever skeletons may be lurking on your family tree or in your closet, whatever crimes you may have committed, whatever associations you may have with those on the government’s most wanted lists: the police state is determined to ferret them out.

In an age of overcriminalization, round-the-clock surveillance, and a police state eager to flex its muscles in a show of power, we are all guilty of some transgression or other.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup waiting to be matched up with a crime.

Suspect State, meet the Genetic Panopticon.

DNA technology in the hands of government officials will complete our transition to a Surveillance State in which prison walls are disguised within the seemingly benevolent trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and the need to guard against terrorists, pandemics, civil unrest, etc.

By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

It’s getting harder to hide, even if you think you’ve got nothing to hide.

Armed with unprecedented access to DNA databases amassed by the FBI and ancestry website, as well as hospital newborn screening programs, police are using forensic genealogy, which allows police to match up an unknown suspect’s crime scene DNA with that of any family members in a genealogy database, to solve cold cases that have remained unsolved for decades.

As reported by The Intercept, forensic genetic genealogists are “combing through the genetic information of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in search of a perpetrator.”

By submitting your DNA to a genealogical database such as Ancestry and 23andMe, you’re giving the police access to the genetic makeup, relationships and health profiles of every relative—past, present and future—in your family, whether or not you or they ever agreed to be part of such a database.

Indeed, relying on a loophole in a commercial database called GEDmatch, genetic genealogists are able to sidestep privacy rules that allow people to opt out of sharing their genetic information with police. The end result? Police are now able to identify and target those very individuals who explicitly asked to keep their DNA results private.

In this way, merely choosing to exercise your right to privacy makes you a suspect and puts you in the police state’s crosshairs.

It no longer even matters if you’re among the tens of millions of people who have added their DNA to ancestry databases. As Brian Resnick reports, public DNA databases have grown so massive that they can be used to find you even if you’ve never shared your own DNA.

That simple transaction—a spit sample or a cheek swab in exchange for getting to learn everything about one’s ancestral makeup, where one came from, and who is part of one’s extended family—is the price of entry into the Suspect State for all of us.

After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving, especially when it helps them crack cold cases of serial murders and rapists.

After all, who wouldn’t want to get psychopaths and serial rapists off the streets and safely behind bars, right?

At least, that’s the argument being used by law enforcement to support their unrestricted access to these genealogy databases, and they’ve got the success stories to prove it.

For instance, a 68-year-old Pennsylvania man was arrested and charged with the brutal rape and murder of a young woman almost 50 years earlier. Relying on genealogical research suggesting that the killer had ancestors who hailed from a small town in Italy, investigators narrowed their findings down to one man whose DNA, obtained from a discarded coffee cup, matched the killer’s.

In another cold case investigation, a 76-year-old man was arrested for two decades-old murders after his DNA was collected from a breathalyzer during an unrelated traffic stop.

Yet it’s not just psychopaths and serial rapists who are getting caught up in the investigative dragnet. In the police state’s pursuit of criminals, anyone who comes up as a possible DNA match—including distant family members—suddenly becomes part of a circle of suspects that must be tracked, investigated, and ruled out.

In this way, “guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in a technological age in which one is just a DNA sample away from being considered a person of interest in a police investigation. As Jessica Cussins warns in Psychology Today, “The fundamental fight—that data from potentially innocent people should not be used to connect them to unrelated crimes—has been lost.”

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That was turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that heralded the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King that taking DNA samples from a suspect doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s subsequent decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

It’s all been downhill since then.

Indeed, the government has been relentless in its efforts to get hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with genealogical services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

Get ready, folks, because the government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

This has been helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget).

For example, Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA government databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS, the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. In many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely. There’s already a move underway to carry out whole genome sequencing on newborns, ostensibly to help diagnose rare diseases earlier and improve health later in life, which constitutes an ethical minefield all by itself.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For example, police in New Jersey accessed the DNA from a nine-year-old blood sample of a newborn baby in order to identify the child’s father as a suspect in a decades-old sexual assault.

The ramifications of this kind of DNA profiling are far-reaching.

At a minimum, these DNA databases do away with any semblance of privacy or anonymity.

These genetic databases and genomic technology also make us that much more vulnerable to creeps and cyberstalkers, genetic profiling, and those who would weaponize the technology against us.

Unfortunately, the debate over genetic privacy—and when one’s DNA becomes a public commodity outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures—continues to lag far behind the government and Corporate America’s encroachments on our rights.

Moreover, while much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

As scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go… In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases… shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As the dissenting opinion to the Maryland Court of Appeals’ shed DNA ruling in Raynor rightly warned, “A person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

It’s just a matter of time before government agents will know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place by following our shed DNA. After all, scientists can already track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers using DNA.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

Of course, none of these technologies are infallible.

DNA evidence can be wrong, either through human error, tampering, or even outright fabrication, and it happens more often than we are told.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals from the past expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

 

 

John and Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

The post We’re All Suspects in a DNA Lineup, Waiting to be Matched with a Crime appeared first on Granite Grok.

Vermont is a wink and a nod away from erecting statues of Lenin and Trotsky next to the Marx Museum of Modern Democrat Socialism. It’s just down and to the Left on Engles Ave. The place is loony with leftism. So this report about energy burden is a real hoot.

And I’m not saying that the researchers aren’t concerned about the problem, just that you could have saved a lot of time and digital trees if they just stated the obvious. What energy burden there is, and it’s increase – and it has increased – is entirely the fault of government meddling. Everything else is mental masturbation.

Democrats have admitted, more than once, that their policies aim to make energy cost more (increasing energy burden), and it is one of the few promises they’ve kept. Driving up energy costs adds inflationary pressure, increasing the cost of everything. This leads to a decline in weekly discretionary and primary income, what you take home, and what is left after paying for energy. Many other issues fuel these fires, but all of them are a product of meddling by busybody progressives and their army of swampy deep-state regulators.

There is a lot of chin-stroking and naval gazing, but the problem of energy burden is easily solved. Get the government out of these marketplaces. The free market can and will repair the damage in due time. But Dems must meddle, and energy, like health care (or health insurance if you think the two are not one politically), are Secular Holy Grails of social engineering, and the Left will not sit on its crooked little hands and let that work itself out.

And the Energy Burden report allows them to grow the government and appear to do something to fix a problem they created.

 

Total energy spending is the sum of annual costs for three categories: Electricity, Thermal, and Transportation. Energy burden is defined as annual energy spending expressed as a percentage of household income.

 

They go into town-by-town details, probably to make a social justice case for economic inequality whose solution is socialized energy, ignoring the highly regulated markets and meddling, which is the old cause and not a new solution.

Look at the changes in energy costs under Biden (which were at record lows under Trump).

 

 

Average expenditures are up from 19-29%. Electricity costs are up 29+%, Thermal is up 19%, and transportation (motor fuels) are up 22%. All of that is policy-driven. It’s deliberate. But the purpose of this data is not to suggest the government needs to get out of the way. In its conclusion, these “researchers” ask,

 

How might we help alleviate energy burden for Vermont’s most vulnerable residents? There are a range of programs from utilities and state agencies that lower the upfront cost of technologies with the potential to reduce energy burden, from cold climate heat pumps, to weatherization, to electric vehicles. Vermont’s EEUs lead and partner on a number of these programs and have historically maintained minimum spending requirements for programs that serve income-eligible residents as their primary approach to addressing energy burden.

 

More meddling. Programs that require the state to reduce incomes to fund those programs that only make the burden of living in Vermont more expensive.

If you’d like to do something meaningful, how about a Democrat governance burden report? Before election day would be nice.

 

HT | WCAX

The post Vermont’s Energy Burden Report is .. Well, Burdensome appeared first on Granite Grok.

Congress’ top priority this fall will be passing legislation funding the government and avoiding a “shutdown.” As of this writing, it appears unlikely that the Republican-controlled House will be able to make a deal with President Biden and the Senate Democrats on a long-term spending bill. Instead, they will likely pass a short-term funding bill to give themselves more time to reach agreement on a longer-term bill.

Any bipartisan agreement is unlikely to reduce government spending or begin to pay down, or stop the growth of, the over $32 trillion national debt, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will grow by at least $115 trillion over the next thirty years. Instead, Congress and the administration will continue to pretend they are addressing the spending problem by “reducing in the projected rate of spending growth,” and other gimmicks.

The sad fact is both parties, along with a majority of the American people, are addicted to welfare-warfare spending. What little resistance there is to big government within the Republican party is likely to be further weakened by the rise of a new form of “conservatism” that advocates the use of government power—including deficit spending and increasing the federal debt — to advance conservative political and social goals.

The failure to take seriously the threat to the American economy caused by reckless federal spending is illustrated by the reactions to the credit rating agency Fitch’s downgrade of the US government’s credit rating. Instead of treating it as a wake-up call, government officials like current Treasury Secretary (and former Federal Reserve Chair) Janet Yellen dismissed the downgrade as “arbitrary and based on outdated data.”

One reason Yellen and others may be so blasé about the federal debt is that they believe the Federal Reserve will bail the government out by holding interest rate low enough to keep the federal government’s interest payments to manageable levels This is why, even though the Fed has been raising interest rates, the rates remain well below what they would likely be in a free market. However, the Fed knows it cannot go back to keeping rates at or below zero without causing price inflation.

Therefore the Fed will likely continue to raise rates for the next several months. The Fed will likely pause its rate increase next year in the hope of boosting economic activity to help President Biden’s reelection campaign. Former President Trump gave Powell an additional incentive to keep rates low next year by promising not to re-appoint him if he returns to the oval office.

Despite the Fed’s repeated interest rate increases, Americans are paying an average of $709 more per month for basic living expenses than they were two years ago. This is why credit card debt is over one trillion dollars. Adding more in private and public debt will increase pressure on the Fed to “do the impossible” – keep interest rates relatively low without creating price inflation. Eventually, the Fed-created debt-based economy will collapse as the dollar loses its reserve currency status. This will increase political divisions and may even lead to political violence.

Those of us who know the truth must make preparations to ensure the safety of ourselves and our loved ones and do all we can to spread the ideas of liberty. Creating a critical mass of people to reject the false promises of the welfare-warfare state is the only way to regain liberty without first suffering political and economic upheaval.

 

Ron Paul | Ron Paul Institute

Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

The post Growing US Debt Menaces Liberty and Prosperity appeared first on Granite Grok.

To all those who are sending in memes, thank you!  Keep them coming please, as it helps me gather weaponry to fight the Left.  Please do share this post, and if you share an individual meme, consider mentioning you saw it on the Grok!

Speaking of, from this week, Monday Memes and Meme Overflow.

 

*** Warning, definitely a couple of off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***

 

 

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

 

The Rancid Mindset of the Left

 

 

Also recommended – an early essay of mine:

The Right Way: The Leftist Sense of Self (obamasez.blogspot.com)

And this book:

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

For a less deep but IMHO far easier / less dry read see this book:

Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild

And I just shake my head at this video, below.  There’s an internet thing, Poe’s Law, which reads (links removed):

Poe’s law is an adage of internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

So I want – SO want – to think this is satire.  And yet, my teacher wife told me that there was a discussion at school about students who “identify” as cats and who want litterboxes.  Plural.

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/mom-wwants-to-take-kid-to-vet.mp4

 

In. Seine.  More:

 

https://gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/146/152/323/playable/f7f6743c02380f23.mp4

 

They go batsh*t crazy hostile because you’re contradicting their faith.  You’re not a skeptic… you’re a heretic.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bringing up this one from the past:

 

 

I don’t fear death per se.

 

 

 

When the race of the murder victim and murderer are both known, blacks are murdered by other blacks in America 90% or so.  Clean up your own mess before you start in on “wypopo”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA

 

 

Don’t they also need your zip code and/or address?  Still, disturbed at the possibility.  Don’t forget that an “enterprising” criminal can set up a chip scanner and ping your card as they’re handing it back to you with your order.  I always pay cash at such places.  Just like, after my card got skimmed several years ago in a gas pump, I always pay cash at the gas station.

Then again, I try to make sure I pay for things with cash, period.

 

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

 

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

– Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

Know your enemy.

 

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

 

The Coming Global Tyranny (broad):

Canada’s first 5G smart city project launched in Kelowna – Cities Today (cities-today.com)

The Global Uprising Against CBDCs Has Begun! (substack.com)

Do not comply, that’s the main thing.  Just understand – any retreat they do is tactical only.

These 14 US Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat By 2030 (thefederalist.com)

 

 

Note the amount.  3000 Euros.  I cannot imagine that, even without this, few transactions that large take place.  But that’s the point.  They’ll start out with something that affects very few people.  And then squeeeeze that amount down.

 

 

This description below almost matches my vacation.  If I worked from home and didn’t need to really “venture out” – pretty much everything was within a 15-20 minute walk.  The first floors of virtually every building were all food markets, meat and bread and veggie stores, optical stores, pharmacies, furniture… exercise clubs, restaurants, even a doctor’s clinic was only about ten minutes away by foot.  You name it.  The megamall was, perhaps a good 45 minutes by foot, but still walkable.  And there were busses and taxis (Uber-like) aplenty.

If I lived there and chose a “small” life, a 15-minute city life, no problem.  It was 95% of the way there.

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/chris-sky-on-toronto.mp4

 

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

 

 

This was in Montenegro.  She knocked the perp out – so was fined.  This second-guessing of a person in the thick of things reminds me of a quote from SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

From Brown v. United States (1921) – Wikipedia

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.

More to the point… in many countries that don’t permit firearms carrying or even ownership, self-defense by almost any means is becoming ever-more restricted.

RE guns, here’s a good MA case for people with LTCs in NH to watch:

A Massachusetts judge set precedent for 50 state CCW reciprocity – Gun Free Zone

And a gun / RKBA meme:

 

 

On self-defense:

Old News: When they tell you to move somewhere… – Gun Free Zone

Don’t get moved to the murder scene.  I’ve already told my kids that if someone tries to drag them into a car, etc., they’re most likely being dragged to the scene of their murder.  Fight like your life depends on it, because it very likely does.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s that expression?  Never give power to the person who lusts after it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Covid and Medicine Related:

 

How Doctors Create Customers – Vox Popoli (voxday.net)

Now isn’t this an interesting piece of history.

—

Dr. McCullough Meets Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche on The Highwire (substack.com)

Fascinating.

—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Hilary Got Wasted

 

 

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

 

Pick of the Post:

 

They’re interrelated.  The first two touch on a “preprogramming” to get us away from the idea of the rule of The People.

 

 

 

And this last, to the idea that – even more than they’re already doing – criminalizing dissent.

 

 

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

 

Miscellaneous links:

 

Migration / White Genocide

 

 

A nation, indeed a civilization, unwilling to defend itself or its people.  Consider this melee in Milan, Italy:

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/milano-melee.mp4

 

Reprising my three-part series on civilizational collapse:

Civilizational Collapse and Biology (Part 1) – Urban Scoop

Civilizational Collapse and Biology (Part 2) – Urban Scoop

Civilizational Collapse and Biology (Part 3) – Urban Scoop

 

 

 

 

=+=+=

 

CBDCs / Economy

‘Just Say No!’ To Economic Slavery | ZeroHedge

Brace Yourselves, Because What The Elites Have Planned Is Going To Absolutely Devastate The US Economy ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

The Rulers Are Pushing For CBDC, Will We Push Back Hard Enough To Stop It? | SHTF Plan

—

To Younger People in [Market-Ticker]

“It’s the economy, stupid”.

 

 

 

=+=+=

Culture Wars

Support for Black Lives Matter repeats a lethal error of history | MelaniePhillips.com

Pitting one against another.

—

And this is just vile.  This is straight out of Huxley’s Brave New World.  CONTENT ALERT!

 

 

 

 

(space left intentionally)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Children should have sex partners” – The UN agenda to normalize pedophilia (stopworldcontrol.com)

This evidence report reveals how the World Health Organization and United Nations are sexualizing little children in primary education worldwide, for the purpose of normalizing pedophilia. This report consists of nothing but solid evidence, with many official documents, videos, books, archives, etc. All PDF documents may be downloaded from the references section at the end of this report.

Between this, and 1984, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, these were written as warnings – and being used as manuals.  Also this:

 

 

If Hashem doesn’t start raining fire and brimstone on us soon, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

 

 

=+=+=

World Stability

Niger’s neighbors set ‘D-Day’ for intervention — RT Africa

Can’t have them uppity Nigerians deciding what to do with their own country.  Europe and America need those resources.

—

Wagner Decries ‘Murder’ Of Prigozhin Amid Reports Anti-Air Missile Struck Plane | ZeroHedge

This would be a catastrophic mistake if it was deliberate by the Russians.  And who benefits?  While I appreciate the revenge motive if the Wagner coup was real, this would be a dreadful miscalculation if Putin was behind it IMHO.

 

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

 

UK Population Collapse “Good for the Planet,” WEF Adviser Prof. Sarah Harper Explains (vigilantnews.com)

Still think that the whole depopulation agenda is just made up?

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/club-of-rome-bearded-guy.mp4

 

Don’t forget my four essays on depopulation:

The 7.3 Billion Dollar, er, Person Question – Liberty’s Torch (libertystorch.info)

Proverbs 16:18… and What’s Coming? – Granite Grok

Dark Thoughts in the Small Hours – Granite Grok

Borrowing from a Dog Food Ad – Urban Scoop

 

 

 

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

 

Palate Cleansers:

 

—

—

 

 

 

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

The Democrats want 1,000,000 EV charging stations to combat climate change? That is extreme; that is too much; 500,00 tops! That is what passes for “conservatism” among the donor-class-GOP, the Establishment-GOP, the whatever-you-want-to-call-them-GOP. And that is how LOSING is done. Take a few minutes to watch Jesse’s rant:

“But Jesse, young people are so scared about climate change!” pic.twitter.com/skyfBduIuI

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) August 24, 2023

 

The post Must See … Jesse Kelly Destroys Faux News And GOP Pretenders For Going Along To Get Along (“Climate Change”) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Following the recent flooding throughout Vermont this summer, the state very proudly touted a response program that offers victims who lost or suffered damage to their cars the opportunity to replace them with an electric vehicle. Not an internal combustion engine vehicle, just an electric vehicle.

Another example of why more people are dying of climate change policy than climate change.

If you want the $11,000 in incentive subsidies, you will get the car the government wants you to have, not the one you necessarily want or need.

But there’s a problem with this policy beyond the overreach of A) taxing Peter and forcing him to pay for Paul’s car and B) putting a government thumb on what should be free-market decisions. Electric vehicle batteries, when submerged in water, create a highly dangerous fire hazard. (See: Electric Vehicles Spontaneously Combust In Florida After Hurricane Ian.)

Encouraging/enabling people who park their cars in places with a demonstrably higher-than-average potential for flooding to switch to vehicles that can explode and burn for days when exposed to flood conditions seems, well, kinda stupid.

With the examples of flooding in California and the Northeast and fires in Hawaii and elsewhere, we are increasingly hearing the refrain that more people are dying of climate change policies than climate change, with good reason. The repeated decisions by federal, state, and local governments to prioritize CO2 reduction over adaptation and emergency preparedness are making bad situations worse than catastrophic.

Hawaii presents the most horrific example. Hawaiian law states, “Pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statutes §225P-5, Hawai’i has a target ‘to sequester more atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gases than emitted within the State as quickly as practicable, but no later than 2045’, effectively establishing a net-negative emissions target.” So, bowing to that pressure, the electric companies put their resources into carbon reduction and neglected grid resilience and fire safety.

According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of the Maui fires, as reported by NBC, “Unfortunately, for the residents of Lahaina, these proposed grid hardening expenditures were deferred,…. The suit states the company hadn’t spent any funding on power pole upgrades or wildfire prevention in 2021, 2022, or 2023, nor had spent anything on hazard tree removals in 2021 or 2022.” But, hey, Hawaiians can take comfort in that they are “lead[ing] by example in adapting to the impacts and mitigating the extent of climate change.” At least the ones who are still alive.

Hopefully, the lessons of 2023 will convince lawmakers to change gears and start prioritizing practical, beneficial policies focused on infrastructure and public safety over CO2 reduction efforts that are high-cost virtue signaling for zero benefit. The questions lawmakers need to start asking are what technologies and policies are the best equipped and most cost-effective to help us deal with – and minimize damage from — the next fire, flood, heatwave, deep freeze, etc. Not what has the lowest carbon footprint? And if they don’t, it’s up to voters to replace them with lawmakers who will as soon as possible.

 

 

Watch Vermont policymakers advocate for encouraging development in floodplains over public safety concerns as part of our Climate Action Plan. Geniuses at work!

 

However, comments by Vermont Transportation Secretary Joe Flynn regarding the post-flood EV program don’t fill me with confidence that lessons have been learned. “We hope these incentive changes will make a difference in curbing the worst effects of climate change,” said Flynn.

If Flynn really has ANY hope that this program will make ANY difference in curbing ANY effects of climate change, let alone “the worst effects,” he is completely and utterly delusional. And if his intent is to perpetuate the fraud that Vermont’s CO2 reduction policies can or will have such impacts, that’s just plain dishonest. Maybe he’d like to share some statistics comparing the roles that internal combustion engine vehicles played in rescue operations and clean-up vs. electric vehicles—looking forward to that press conference.

Vermont politicians are banking on the massive adoption of electric vehicles by Vermonters over the next few years in order to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals in the Global Warming Solutions Act (very similar to those from Hawaii noted above). According to the Climate Council, Vermonters need to put 126,000 EVs on our roads by 2030. As of this July, there were 5,260 registered.

This number comes as overall demand for EVs nationally is softening, so it’s pretty clear meeting this target isn’t happening – by a very long shot. People just don’t want these cars (at least not to that level of demand), and taking advantage of flood victims to make that pathetic number look slightly less pathetic seems awfully cynical.

Helping people who have lost a vehicle because of flooding get back on the road is a noble goal, and I’m sure can be a real difference-maker for someone trying to get their lives back on track. However, the policy should be to help the most people in the most cost-effective and practical way. I seriously doubt that limiting assistance to those who want, have access to the charging infrastructure, and can afford the unsubsidized portion of the cost of an electric vehicle is the best or most compassionate way to do this.

 

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

 

The post Does Paying Flood Victims to Get Cars That Explode When Wet Make Sense? appeared first on Granite Grok.

WASHINGTON / August 23, 2023 – Courtney Conover of Pennsylvania made a series of false accusations against Dr. James Amor and another person, claiming they had mishandled the complaints of victims of rape and sexual assault.

Using her blog and social media account, Conover accused them of being “the devil,” a “human monster,” had been “aiding and abetting a pedophile for two decades,” and other outlandish claims.

The jury was so disturbed by the accusations that it found in favor of Dr. Amor and awarded $1.4 million in damages. This past Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Gallagher upheld the jury finding, although he did reduce the damages (1).

False allegations represent a growing threat across the country. A 2020 YouGov survey found that 8% of Americans had been falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse (2). Three years later, that number had increased to 10% (3).

Unfortunately, feminist groups are working to give a free pass to false accusers, focusing on both the civil and criminal settings:

Civil: Feminists are seeking to confer absolute legal immunity on women who make accusations that are knowingly false. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that lawsuits for damages from defamatory claims reflect “our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being.” (4)

But that didn’t stop Legal Momentum (formerly, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) from filing an amicus brief in Khan v. Yale University seeking absolute immunity for the false accuser (5). In June, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Khan, rejecting the Legal Momentum arguments (6).

Criminal: Feminist organizations are pressuring prosecutors to not file criminal charges against false accusers, even though every state has laws that ban persons from making false reports. Last week a group known as End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) released an email message titled, “Is Prosecution for False Reporting Ever Appropriate?”

The message links to a longer document with the provocative title, “Raped, Then Jailed: The Risks of Prosecution for Falsely Reporting Sexual Assault” (7). The report fails to clarify the key distinction between an allegation that is “unfounded” — not meeting the legal standard of proof — versus “false,” that is, made in bad faith.

The crux of the EVAWI argument is that prosecuting an accuser is contrary to the “public interest.” Predictably, the feminist organization’s concept of “public interest” excludes any consideration of the effects of a bogus accusation on the falsely accused, including its devastating effects on the person’s reputation, mental and physical health, social standing, and career opportunities.

Worse, EVAWI never mentions the fact that false allegations and perjury are now the number one cause of wrongful convictions, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (8).

September 9 is International Falsely Accused Day (9). The global event is intended to raise awareness of how easy it is to fall victim to a false accusation, to point out how the presumption of innocence has been eroded, and how the law continues to be upended in the name of “social justice.”

Citations:

1. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/22/court-reduces-1-4m-verdict-to-71-5k-in-theylied-renaissance-faire-libel-case/#more-8246241
2. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/survey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/
3. https://endtodv.org/survey-false-allegations-of-abuse-are-a-global-problem-women-most-often-the-accusers/
4. Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 341 (1974).
5. https://www.legalmomentum.org/amicus-briefs/khan-v-yale-univ-et-al 
6. https://www.thefire.org/news/connecticut-supreme-court-issues-blistering-critique-yales-unfair-title-ix-proceedings
7. https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-5_TB_Raped-Then-Jailed-1.pdf 
8. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx
9. https://falselyaccusedday.org/#:~:text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20is%20intended,in%20the%20name%20of%20justice.&text=Falsely%20Accused%20Day%20will%20take%20place%20on%20the%209th%20September%20every%20year.

PRESS RELEASE
Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org

The post As False Allegations Spiral Out of Control, Feminist Groups Work to Give False Accusers a Free Pass appeared first on Granite Grok.

A White Tower stooge has published an article in the New York Times suggesting that America might be better off if it bailed on the popular vote. Given the recent trajectory, who could blame anyone for thinking that?

 

On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.

Officials? Integrity? I think you misspelled “officials have been working to undermine the safeguarding of elections.” It’s okay. If the elections are rigged, and we can’t unrig them, perhaps there is a better way.

The premise for change is sensible. The worst sort of people are drawn to politics. They are more often persuasive, manipulative, and likely to lie. The very nature of the occupation attracts characters who will power. All true. To escape this, Dr. Adam Grant, a contributing opinion writer who is an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, suggests a lottery.

Random schmoes are picked from a “hat” and appointed to the duty for some number of years until “someone” randomly picks new ones.

 

When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well. And in one of the Haslam experiments, when a leader was picked at random, members were more likely to stand by the group’s decisions.

 

He points to Ancient Athens, where,

 

“…people had a choice about whether to participate in the lottery. They also had to pass an examination of their capacity to exercise public rights and duties. In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship. We might wind up with leaders who understand the Constitution.”

 

It sounds appealing, yes? We’d save gazillions of dollars on primaries and elections and that pesky federalism—no more Super PACS or election Dark Money. The current system has been corrupted, and there are few constraints on the abuse by its manipulators. A problem some suggest could be resolved with an Article V convention, but why would anyone ignoring the current piece of paper suddenly take notice of it if you changed or added a few words?

Is a lottery the answer?

I think Dr. Grant was picked to float a trial balloon at the Paper of Record to open the door for ending elections, nothing more, nothing less, because it is easier and less messy than replacing the electorate. Convince them that their participation damages [insert thing here] and make excuses for why anything else is better.

No one says that, but he does point out how much money and bother would be averted, and the siren call is alluring (for some, I’m sure). No more campaign calls or mailboxes filled with glossy campaign literature. But the Swamp would run everything since a genuine and honest lottery would produce winners who wouldn’t know how anything works or be in office long enough to learn. In other words, ending the corruption and malfeasance only works if you first dismantle the administrative state by subjecting their jobs to a lottery—at least the top tiers of the folks running those agencies. Kick them out and take their names out of the hat.

We wouldn’t want lottery-elected leaders appointing those people, would we? Assuming the lottery isn’t fixed, why would we think anything less?

Not that this is what they are after, quite the opposite. They want figureheads managed by pencil pushers who are nearly all progressive stooges themselves.

Will my social credit score exclude me?

There are many questions, but Dr. Grant seems determined to convince us this would be better, and he points to Canada and the Netherlands as examples.

 

Other countries have begun to see the promise of sortition. Two decades ago, Canadian provinces and the Dutch government started using sortition to create citizens’ assemblies that generated ideas for improving democracy. In the past few years, the French, British and German governments have run lotteries to select citizens to work on climate change policies. Ireland tried a hybrid model, gathering 33 politicians and 66 randomly chosen citizens for its 2012 constitutional convention. In Bolivia, the nonprofit Democracy in Practice works with schools to replace student council elections with lotteries. Instead of elevating the usual suspects, it welcomes a wider range of students to lead and solve real problems in their schools and their communities.

 

None of these places is better or better off than America. Most of them are worse, and a few are tipping toward totalitarianism. This suggests that the oft-quoted maxim about political systems is still valid. The American Republic is the worst system in the world except for all the others – and a lottery is not the answer. Or is it?

Perhaps we need a lottery of regular folks to work for four-year stretches as managing editors, producers, or directors for news, media, and big tech companies. Or, better yet, a lottery for the positions of those who run and control state and local elections. Moderators, poll workers.

I bet that would shake things up a bit. It might even “fix” the Democracy.

 

 

The post Voting is Bad for Democracy appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Constitution “is not a suicide pact,” said Justice Arthur Goldberg in the court’s opinion in the 1963 Supreme Court case of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. His statement highlights a fundamental truth: in times of crisis, governments often feel compelled to take extraordinary measures to protect their citizens and maintain order.

However, this desire to act swiftly and decisively can lead down a perilous path where the expansion of government power becomes a seemingly irreversible process. Welcome to the world of the ratchet effect.

What Is the Ratchet Effect?

This phenomenon gets its name from the mechanical device called a ratchet, which allows motion in one direction only. Just as a ratchet prevents backward movement, the ratchet effect ensures that government power advances inexorably, never retreating to previous levels.

The ratchet effect theory, as popularized by Robert Higgs in his book Crisis and Leviathan, refers to the tendency of governments to respond to crises by implementing new policies, regulations, and laws that significantly enhance their powers. These measures are typically presented as temporary solutions to address specific problems. However, in history, these measures often outlast their intended purpose and become a permanent part of the legal landscape.

The Ratchet Effect in Action

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in response to the 9/11 attacks, exemplifies this trend. Intended to enhance national security, it granted sweeping new powers to intelligence agencies, including authorizing “sneak and peek” searches under Section 213. These types of searches allowed delayed notification of search warrants, permitting law enforcement to secretly enter private premises without immediately informing the owner, raising Fourth Amendment concerns.

The act also greatly expanded the definition of “domestic terrorism” to include activities that seem intended to influence government policy through intimidation or coercion, without requiring evidence of actual violence. This broadened definition gave law enforcement enhanced leeway to investigate activist groups engaged in nonviolent advocacy and protest activities.

Yet, despite the lapse of two decades since 9/11, these provisions persist, normalizing extraordinary intrusions into privacy. This illustrates how emergency measures can become entrenched through the ratchet effect, as the ongoing fear of terrorism fossilizes exceptions to civil liberties into standard practice long after the initial crisis has passed.

Similarly, the 2008 global financial crisis prompted governments worldwide to impose rigorous regulatory frameworks on financial institutions. Although conceived as stopgap measures, these restrictions have proven remarkably durable, constraining economic growth and innovation. The specter of another devastating crash continues to justify the existence of these restrictions, disregarding the adverse effects on entrepreneurship and personal autonomy.

More recently, the covid-19 pandemic has brought the ratchet effect back into sharp focus. Governments have instituted a range of controls to contain the virus, from lockdowns and travel restrictions to mask mandates and vaccination requirements. While some of these measures—it could be argued—may have been appropriate in the short term, their prolonged implementation raises concerns about creeping authoritarianism. As fear and uncertainty persist, there is a growing risk that these temporary measures will become permanent features of our lives, further diminishing individual liberties.

It is essential to recognize the subtle yet pernicious nature of the ratchet effect. Each successive crisis creates opportunities for governments to consolidate their powers, often under the guise of protecting its citizens. However, this accretion of authority comes at a profound cost: the gradual relinquishment of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Looming Potential Crises: AI and Climate Change

As we reflect on the historical progression of government power during times of crisis, we must also turn our attention to the potential threats on the horizon that could further amplify state control. Two pressing concerns that warrant careful consideration are the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and the intensifying calls for action against climate change.

Advancements in AI technology present both extraordinary possibilities and daunting challenges. As AI integrates deeper into various sectors of society, governments might feel pressured to exercise greater authority to ensure public safety, data privacy, and economic stability. Fears surrounding job displacement and unpredictable moral predicaments could serve as justification for heightened supervision. Nonetheless, such interventions risk reinforcing the ratchet effect, culminating in an accumulation of AI-centric regulations that stagnate innovation and hamper economic progress.

The unfolding climate change crisis continues to dominate headlines, with mounting pressure on world leaders to take drastic measures to curtail emissions and transition toward renewable energy sources. Already, governments are responding to this crisis with sweeping policies aimed at mitigating the perceived threat. Yet, there exists a danger that emergency-driven actions will metamorphose into permanent features of the regulatory terrain. Opportunistic special interest groups may capitalize on the situation to promote their agendas, contributing to an enlargement of government influence that transcends the initial response to environmental imperatives.

The Quest for Liberty and Economic Implications

When crises strike, the instinctive reach for government intervention may provide fleeting comfort, but it often ignores the long-term consequences of empowering the state at the expense of personal autonomy. As the heavy hand of regulation descends, it smothers the entrepreneurial spirit, strangles innovation, and saps the vitality of once-thriving markets. The result? A sluggish economy, suffocating under the weight of bureaucratic red tape, and a citizenry increasingly beholden to an all-powerful government.

By embracing market-driven solutions, we can tap into the limitless potential of human ingenuity by creating new opportunities, products, and services that drive growth and improve lives. From cutting-edge technologies to innovative business models, the free market has always been the engine of progress, lifting billions out of poverty and connecting people across the globe.

Moreover, the pursuit of individual liberty and property rights is not only a moral imperative, it’s also a key driver of economic success. When individuals are free to pursue their passions and ideas without undue interference, they create value that benefits everyone. Conversely, when governments overstep their bounds, they stifle innovation, suppress entrepreneurship, and ultimately impoverish society.

Therefore, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to the principles of classical liberalism, rejecting the false promises of collectivist ideologies and embracing the spontaneous order of the free market. By trusting in the invisible hand, we can build a brighter future where freedom, innovation, and prosperity flourish.

Conclusion

The ratchet effect’s inexorable advance poses a constant threat to individual liberty and economic prosperity. History teaches us that emergency measures, however well-intentioned, tend to metastasize into permanent restrictions on our freedom. As we weather the tempests of crises, we must remain vigilant in defense of our fundamental rights and the engines of economic growth.

To succeed in this endeavor, we must cultivate a deep understanding of the ratchet effect and its insidious workings. We must recognize how seemingly innocuous measures, passed in the heat of the moment, can gradually accumulate and harden into oppressive systems. We must also appreciate the roles that individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit play in fostering resilience and prosperity.

With this knowledge, we can chart a course that preserves the delicate balance between public safety and personal autonomy. We can design crisis responses that are surgical in their precision, minimizing the impact on our liberties while maximizing their effectiveness in addressing the challenge at hand. We can create regulatory frameworks that enable innovation to flourish rather than suffocating it beneath a blanket of bureaucratic red tape.

Ultimately, our success will depend on our ability to stay true to our core values of protecting property rights and preserving individual and economic freedoms. By remaining vigilant and committed to these principles, we can build societies that are both resilient in the face of crisis and prosperous in the long term. The ratchet effect may continue to exert its influence, but we can ensure that its grip remains loose and that our spirits remain unbroken.

 

Michael Matulef | 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 The Ratchet Effect and the Erosion of Liberty appeared first on Granite Grok.

OUR GOVERNOR has officially signed HB 611 to create a commission to study state-controlled sales of drugs. Marijuana and THC products, to be exact.

To quote Governor Chris Sununu, ”New Hampshire has an opportunity to safely regulate the sale of marijuana with a model few others can provide.” Does he realize that once he legalizes weed in New Hampshire, that is it; there is no going back?

As we know, policies change. Even if he gets a “model policy,” when he leaves office in December of 2024, the bill can be changed, and safeguards as written may be lost. Then, our new governor will have to deal with, and hopefully agree with, the policy as it is written. We will also have a new legislative body of representatives and senators who may be motivated to introduce new legislation with fewer restrictions.

States throughout the country that have legalized weed are a mess for countless reasons, and we certainly don’t want that in New Hampshire. So, compared to that, a state-run marijuana industry may sound like a great idea, but let’s be clear: once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be more marijuana on our roads, and child endangerment will increase, as will addiction.

Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it is. New Hampshire, like several other states, continues to stop legalization from coming into our state because we have people who care. People have spoken up because they have witnessed the damage of this drug to children, families, loved ones, economies, cultures, and community safety.

The simple fact is that there is no safe way to increase access to a drug. When you increase access, you increase use. New Hampshire is already one of the highest-ranking states in the country for substance misuse. Do we want the distinction of being number one?

The New Hampshire prevention community provided hours of testimony from people who have seen and lived with the collateral damage of increased access to this harmful substance. Unfortunately, Gov. Sununu was not there to listen. If he heard the doctors, law enforcement professionals, parents, youth, substance misuse counselors, and countless others who took the time to speak about why this is such a bad idea, maybe he would have accepted the results of HB 639. Maybe he would have respected that New Hampshire does not want this in our state and communities.

What is even more difficult to wrap my mind around is that the very people whose job it is to prevent this from happening, substance misuse prevention professionals, are being told by the governor to make it happen. Their task is to come up with a model policy that has all of the safeguards in it. But the simple fact is that there is no perfect policy or safeguards when you are increasing access to a harmful, addictive drug.

How many times have we heard Governor Sununu say that now is not the time to legalize when people are dying and overdosing on drugs? Countless times. It was a very responsible position. What happened? AMR medics report historical overdose numbers in our two key cities, Manchester and Nashua. The highest since August of 2018. So, as citizens of New Hampshire, are we to believe that if we have a state-run model for marijuana outlets, these numbers will go down?

Can the governor tell us how a state-run model that sells marijuana and edibles will limit access? The whole idea of selling a product is profit, and this will most definitely increase access.

At a hearing this past spring in Concord, discussing HB 639, the New Hampshire Liquor commissioner gave testimony that he has conducted studies of what is being sold in our neighboring states, how much it is being sold for, and his plan for how the Granite State will undercut their prices and sell in much higher quantities. Does this sound like limiting access? Does this sound like we would be protecting children and families?

New Hampshire is known for its liquor sales and its significant profits. Do we really want to be known for being the marijuana market leader as well? Do we want to be a tourist destination for those looking to purchase weed and its many THC products? Do we want the people consuming these products driving on our roads? Will this action increase business development opportunities? Is this the New Hampshire we envision for our children and future generations?

There are so many questions, but the big one is this. Is this the legacy our Gov. Sununu wants to leave behind after eight successful years in the corner office?

Please reach out to the Governor or Senator Jeb Bradley with your thoughts on the state being in the business of selling marijuana.

Celeste Clark is the executive director of the Raymond Coalition for Youth.

 

The post Our Governor wants NH to Sell Marijuana appeared first on Granite Grok.

First of all, the clear winner of the debate … DONALD TRUMP. As of 10:00 AM on August 24, his sit-down with Tucker Carlson has 185 million views:

The biggest LOSER of the debate was the voter who expected a serious debate. Instead, it was essentially a time-warp as Faux News tried to turn the clock back to pre-2016 GOP. Pathetic:

This is embarrassing and utterly detached from reality. Fake climate change and UFOs are the “issues that matter?” Not Biden corruption? Not DOJ murdering the rule of law? Not Biden’s Katrina in Maui? Mmmk. pic.twitter.com/noimRyzN9p

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 24, 2023

But if we have to name a candidate who came across as a loser, it’s got to be DeSantis. NOT strong, not decisive, not a leader … scripted and weak:

Well he got his forever moment

Just not the one he was hoping for pic.twitter.com/1tKNqfCoYS

— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) August 24, 2023

So … based on this “debate,” who should Trump choose as Veep? If the choice is confined to the debate stage, then Vivek. He was the only one who didn’t pander on “climate change” and didn’t cheerlead Blackrock’s war in Ukraine:

Vivek called climate change a hoax AND was the only person to not want to continue to fund Ukraine.

He wins.

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) August 24, 2023

But this election should NOT be about Republican versus Democrat because it is NOT. It’s about the elites in both parties versus the rest of us. The Faux Debate offered NOTHING to working men and women. NOTHING. What Trump should do is ask Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be his running mate:

The post Debate Takeaway … Trump Should Choose Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. For Vice President appeared first on Granite Grok.

The problem of horse flatulence is not often discussed, yet there are important lessons to be learned from equine methane gas (via flatulence or burp), particularly to demonstrate the fraudulent claims leveled against cows as major polluters.

Horses and cows impact the ecosystem differently, but the lies of climate alarmists about livestock remain the same.

 

Sequestering carbon while creating food with solar power: Jersey cows in Williamstown, Vermont

 

Because they only have one stomach and digest feed differently from cows, horses generally produce less methane gas per animal than cows. There are also far more cows than horses—some 94.5 million bovines, versus about 7.25 million equines. However, the methane produced by cows yields food: horses are a leisure interest. It is intriguing that climate alarmists would target food-producing greenhouse gas emissions as a priority over non-food-producing sources such as golf courses, downhill skiing, jet travel…. or dressage riding.

But even for cows, there are complex differences in methane production depending on feed: grain-fed versus grass-fed cows impact the ecosystem differently. Many who tout industrial agriculture as humanity-saving slander grass-fed cows as destructive, but the opposite is the case.

Grass-fed cows grow more slowly (naturally) than grain-fed cows, so they take about 6 months longer to reach finished weight for slaughter. Critics claim this longer life increases methane, and that grain-fed cows produce less methane than grass-fed. Both claims are true, but employed to obscure the greenhouse gas and pollution emissions emitted by the production of grains. Most grains fed to cows are GMO monocultures (soy and corn), in turn dependent on fossil fuels, glyphosate and other chemical adjuncts, pesticides, herbicides, and bee-killing neonicotinoids. The tractors used to grow grains compact the soil, increasing erosion, water run-off, and loss of minerals. The chemical applications destroy vital microbes, and tilling releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in massive quantities. Suppose these additional measurements were included to determine the total environmental impact of grain-fed animals. In that case, the folly of the industrial claims that bigger is better, and that unnatural grain feeding is less destructive to the environment than grass-fed, become glaringly apparent.

The same is true of solar panels and EVs. By excluding the externalized chemical and other pollution created by manufacturing solar panels (mostly with coal, in Chinese factories) and EVs (consider the lithium mines alone!), climate alarmists push technologies that do the opposite of what is claimed. Even if solar panels are net-zero for greenhouse gasses (a highly dubious assertion), they are not net-zero for carcinogens, or a myriad of toxic heavy metals, untested chemicals, and energy inputs spewed like an enormous plume of filth from those faraway factories. Climate alarmists display images of forests burned in the Amazon to grow crops, but poo-poo pictures of lithium mines, with lakes of toxic tailings leaking across third-world landscapes.

 

The author’s lambs feeding the soil and clearing weeds in Brookfield, Vermont

 

A critical thinker might also query how much concern humanity should hold for dogs and cats, which pass gas freely and now consume some 25% of all U.S. meat production (increasingly, of finer cuts for the gourmet market). Maligning millions of adored pets might be a problematic political pill to peddle, so the hapless, harmless cows—who have fed and clothed humans for tens of thousands of years—become the scapegoats. Pet rocks should be a Greta Thunberg favorite, yet no peep is uttered against canine/feline greenhouse gas pollution.

The attacks on cows are revealed as scandalously false when further comparisons are made. Consider the environmental impact of cow manure versus cow burps; and then the contrasts between that natural fertilizer and the synthetic industrial fertilizers that presumably will be applied to crops in lieu.

Gas v. Solid; Burps Versus Cowpies

When Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) created a stir by flapping her flatulent lips against cow gasses, the ignorance displayed was profound. For one thing, most bovine emissions (about 95%) are burped up: fermentation occurs in the rumen. For another, AOC falsely labeled a gas as a pollutant, ignoring the solid waste that is (100%) emitted from the cow’s derriere. That manure is what humanity has used for eons to improve soil fertility and crop yields, and prevent desertification. (Indeed, human excrement has a long tradition of agricultural reincarnation.)

Manure v. Synthetic Urea; Tracing Methane

Cows on pasture distribute their manure, fertilizing the land sans tractors or chemical factories. As cows have been consolidated into CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) their manure has been collected in lagoons, where it is then mechanically spread using fossil fuels and industrial equipment, inflicting yet more soil compaction and chemical pollution. Natural, soil-building manures have been largely displaced by synthetic fertilizers, of which urea is key.

Industrial urea is produced using natural gas, aka methane. AOC and the other cow-clueless leaders on environmental policy are advocating to eliminate cows because they emit methane gas, and then replace their manure with industrial applications that destroy soil life and pollute waterways, that are manufactured from methane gas, and distributed using fossil fuels instead of solar-powered (i.e., on grass) cows.

How are the cows proposed to be replaced, in the name of providing an environmental offset against humans who pollute with fireworks, lawnmowers, and jet travel (or horse-riding) without procuring an iota of food? Their milk is to be replaced with soy, almond, cashew, or oat milk, which absorb massive and unsustainable amounts of water: most are “farmed” using chemical applications and fossil fuels. Cows’ meat is to be replaced with synthetic (primarily soy) artificial Frankensteinian concoctions, all dependent once again on industrial chemicals, fossil fuels, and sparkling new high-tech factories protected by regulations and patent ownership, and funded by profit-hungry hedge funds. What could possibly be awry?

 

A cluster of Angus cows maintains this fabulous view in Chelsea, Vermont, little black specks near the top center of the hillside.

 

Grass-fed agricultural practices are healthier for farm animals, allowing them to roam rather than be locked in a concrete jungle. They are also much healthier for the humans who eat them, and the environment. Cows are our climate allies, not adversaries, yet cow attacks continue, employing lies that favor industrial, chemical-dependent monocultures and increasing dependency on patented, processed foodstuffs.

Whether it is cow plops or horse dung, manure is an asset for the land that far exceeds any putative harm attributed to methane from gaseous emissions from either end of that innocent cow. Cow critics might see this, if they briefly dismounted from their high horses.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer.

The post Cow and Horse Flatulence: A Farmer’s Comparative Environmental Assessment appeared first on Granite Grok.

Governor Chris Sununu is criticizing President Trump for not showing up at the first Republican Primary Debate last night. That’s a strange thing to say, considering he has refused Republican primary debates in his last two gubernatorial elections.

I can’t recall any debates with Sununu, in fact, since he got elected to the post. You’d think he would remember that but No Show Sununu felt good about saying this on national television.

 

“I honestly think he’s gonna regret it, I really do. You can’t say I’m going to lead the free world and not be willing to get up and talk to those who are going to challenge you and want the job. You can’t really do that. It’s not fair to the system. It’s not doing respect to the voters and your base,” Sununu said.

 

I guess the same concepts don’t apply to the Granite State, where you can say you’re going to lead and not be willing to get up and talk to those who are going to challenge you for the job.

Did I get that right?

Trump (naturally) had some thoughts for His Excellency, but sadly, they did not include Sununu’s absence from debates in successive governor’s races.

 

 

 

 

And for the record, Sununu knows exactly why he didn’t debate, and it’s the same reason Trump skipped it. There is no political advantage to it. You’re way ahead in the polls, and not being there is less of a risk to the campaign.

And as it turns out, the RINO patrol took most of their vehemence out on Vivek Ramaswamy, whom I read returned every volley. Will the first post-debate polls show his rise thanks to all the attention he got?

They may, but the better question is this. Does Trump gain or lose some advantage among Republican primary voters as a result?

 

HT | Washington Examiner

The post Sununu, Who Would Not Debate Republican Challengers in 2020 or 2022, Criticizes Trump for Dodging a Debate appeared first on Granite Grok.