Is there no limit to Mikey Graham’s Trump-Derangement-Syndrome? Apparently NOT. Now (writing this on 3/2) Mikey is promoting a piece by a CLINTON bureaucrat (IRS no less) that rewrites history … portraying Ronald Reagan as a warmonger who supported open-borders:

According to Oswald (from the linked post), Reagan would be supporting “aid” to Ukraine (i.e., money for the military-industrial complex) because he would see it as part of the Cold War against the Soviet Union

[Reagan] believed the Soviet Union was an “evil empire,” as he called it in his speech on March 8, 1983. … Reagan would be shocked by Republican resistance to send aid to Ukraine to fight Russia. Likewise, he would be incredulous at the flirtations with Moscow by some GOP members, …

Actually, Reagan would understand … as Oswald either does NOT, or thinks we do NOT … that the Soviet Union dissolved decades ago and that today’s Russia is NOT the Soviet Union. Moreover, Reagan called the Soviet Union “evil” because he believed that COMMUNISM was evil, NOT because he believed that Russia or the Russian people were evil.

What Regan would see as communism today is much of the Left’s (and Oswald’s) agenda: open-borders to transform America into a minority-White population, DEI, CRT, indoctrinating schoolchildren with woke. And, by the way, in case you’ve forgotten Reagan was pro-life and wanted Roe overturned.

Reagan was a man of PEACE. He did NOT want war with the Soviet Union. He repeatedly stated publicly that his goal was arms reduction … something that today would be total anathema to today’s supporters of Ukraine … but that to achieve arms reduction America needed to bargain from a position of strength; hence the military-buildup.

As for illegal immigration, Oswald claims that because Reagan signed an amnesty law that he would be in favor of open borders today. What is far more likely is that, having seen the Democrats renege on their end of the bargain (aided and abetted by the globalist/corporatist takeover of the GOP post-Reagan), Reagan’s position would be virtually identical to Trump’s.

Stated slightly differently, Reagan did NOT sign an amnesty law because he believed in open borders … he signed an amnesty law because in return he was supposed to get a secure border.

It was George H. W. Bush who when the Berlin War finally was torn down seemed disappointed that the Cold War was over. It was his warmonger son W who continued the Clinton-policy of strengthening China’s economy in order to enrich Wall Street at the expense of Main Street AND who invaded Iraq based on LIES told to the American people. It is the Bushes, the McCains, the Romneys, the McConnells, the Sununus, who have no place in today’s GOP. And that is a very good thing and something we can thank Trump for.

 

The post NH-NeverTrumpJournal Rewrites History … Ronald Reagan Was A Warmonger Who Supported Open Borders appeared first on Granite Grok.

Another week of comments, a school vacation week for many in New Hampshire, and yes – traffic dipped a bit with some folks traveling or doing more family stuff, but commenters will comment, and they did.

Thank you for that.

And I’m not ignoring all the fabulous comments by our authors and previous winners; I’m just trying to spread the love around a bit. You guys (authors and past winners) continue to engage in and encourage debate that has brought new readers and comments to GranitGrok, and that’s what this is all about.

And honestly, I’d give you all a prize if I could afford it, or – more accurately – pay authors for their excellent works, but we aren’t even at the pay Steve to do everything stage. It’s a work in progress—a lot of work but a labor of love searching for an income. The increased engagement helps, but it is also its own reward.

Great job everyone.

This Week’s Winner.

I think everyone did a great job with a side note to Lynn and Herb, who are downvoting more than the average number of comments. Make sure you are also commenting. I see at least a few remarks from Lynn but none from Herb unless I missed them. Don’t be a troll. You have a Disqus account, so discuss your concerns and share your perspective on the downvotes. We encourage readers to debate, agree, and disagree – you won’t get nixed for sharing a contrary opinion. We’re not Facebook or pre-Musk Twitter. Free speech matters; just be civil about it.

On that note, this week’s winner shared something I found not only brief – brevity is the soul of wit (Polonius, in Act 2,  scene 2 of Hamlet) but inspiring. It belongs on mugs, T-shirts, and bumper stickers (and maybe we’ll do that at some point).

Bill589

This comedian expressed my view decades ago: “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.” — Tommy Smothers

 

As another reminder, this does not mean that the other comments were lacking or that other commenters did not provide value or insight or expand and extend the debate. We had a lot of great input (as we always do), but there can be only one (each week).

Bill589, please email me at steve@granitegrok.com to arrange to ship you a prize.

Note to Rick Kenyon and AllyforFreedom: I’m still waiting on a ship-to address for both of you.

The post Our Latest Comment of the Week Winner Is … appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you’ve missed it or are a glutton for punishment (as opposed to a gluten for punishment, which is what my spellchecker just tried to do to my pre-editing fat-fingered spelling of the former), HB1002 has gone around and come around after a valiant but failed effort to kill it on the floor of the NH House.

Those seeking to pass the bill would love to wrangle some number of reps to support a Rube Goldbergina Final Solution whose goal remains the same. Punish everyone for the misdeeds of an alleged few to benefit “The State” while embedding a deliberate decline of government transparency and accountability into the law.

This is a bad bill. How bad is it? In a casual pre-zoom meeting conversation late last week, I framed the problem again in what I hoped was a new way (to review my past efforts to undermine the passage of this crap wagon of a bill, look here). If there are a handful of near-do-wells making right-to-know requests with legitimate Cloward-Piven-esqe malice, what sane Republican would take the same approach to access to public documents as Democrats do to the right to self-defense?

To Democrats, every shooting, even the ones that the FBI does not set up, is not just an excuse to punish law-abiding people but a call to action. Gun owners, in total, must pay a price for the actions of the disorderly few. By making it difficult or impossible to exercise the right, you give the government a power that puts law-abiding citizens at risk – not just from those disorderly few but the very tyranny of government 2A exists to dissuade.

That’s HB1002.

Any added cost, fee, fine, or tax to access public records makes the mere idea of holding your local or state government accountable less likely. It limits the pool of those able to afford it. It encourages the government to make accountability less likely by ensuring it is unaffordable.

HB1002′ disarms’ citizens who might otherwise request public documents, discouraging civic involvement or engagement.

HB1002 is the information elitism bill, and making carve-outs for the media (including GraniteGrok) does not make it better, and if you don’t think it will be abused, you are lying to yourself and everyone else.

Would it not be a better use of our time to address the disorderly few towns that leverage government power and the taxpayer purse to hide the people’s business from the people than to find ways to encourage more towns to follow their bad example?

 

The post HB1002 is Treating “Government Transparency” the Way Democrats Treat The “Right to Self Defense” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Well, Jay Eshelman and I have finally found something we can agree on, so it’s probably worth reproducing here instead of leaving it buried in the comments section of his recent post.  Here it is, in response to someone claiming that if we could just get 25% of kids to leave public schools, the system would collapse.

Actually, in NH over the last twenty years, attendance is down 15 percent, while spending (adjusted for inflation) is up 40 percent. Historically, removing kids from the schools leads to growth, which is the opposite of collapse.

There is a way out, though, which is to take the state supreme court at its word: Taxes should pay for the OPPORTUNITY to get an education.

Right now, that requirement is satisfied by giving a kid a Chromebook (about $150 at Walmart) and a subscription to Starlink (about $90 a month). With those two things, you’ve led the horse to water, and if he doesn’t want to drink, that’s his problem. Imagine dropping the per-student cost for a district from around $25,000 to around $1000. Any school board with the stones to do this could do it, right now, without any change in the law.

But that doesn’t solve the daycare problem, does it? If you still want to have subsidized babysitting, you can (again) take the state supreme court at its word: Taxes should pay for the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and learning NECESSARY to participate intelligently in the American political, economic, and social systems of a free government.

If something isn’t important enough to be mandatory, then it clearly isn’t necessary. And if it’s being provided at some school districts but not all of them, then it clearly isn’t necessary. It follows that no school should be using tax money to teach anything that isn’t (1) mandatory and (2) taught at all schools.

If parents want to pay extra money for more than that, that would be up to them. But they’d probably be silly to get those things through the schools, which are always more expensive (and nearly always of lower quality) than private options.

Note that the court is talking about knowledge and learning, and not ‘course credit’. So you can’t just say every kid should ‘take a course in technology’, or ‘take a course in science’. You need to say, specifically, what is to be learned and why it is necessary.

This would cut the curriculum (and associated cost) to about 10% of what it is now, which would actually be a good thing. As the Chinese say, if you chase a bunch of rabbits, you won’t catch any of them. It would be a lot better, and a lot cheaper, to have schools that succeed at producing students who can read and do math than schools that try to teach too much and consequently fail to teach much of anything.

If you can read and do math, you can decide later to learn any damn thing you want, with the help of thousands of people who are lined up to assist you with that, often for free. Which is what it means to be ‘educated.’

So, we’d still have to heat and light the buildings and run the buses, but the cost of the schooling part of the enterprise (including the cost of extra-curricular activities, like sports) would drop pretty quickly. Kids could spend a couple of hours a day, a few days a week, learning necessary material and then spend the rest of their time hanging out with their friends — or studying if they’re serious about learning and not being distracted by shuffling from room to room to listen to lectures about things that don’t interest them and that aren’t necessary for them to know.

But just thinking you accomplish any kind of significant change just by reducing attendance — without changing the fundamental nature of schools — is contradicted by history, as well as by reasoning.

The post Fewer Students + Business as Usual = More Dollars appeared first on Granite Grok.

Creating stunning outdoor spaces doesn’t have to break the bank, especially when you consider the charm and personality that DIY metal lawn ornaments add to your garden. But where do you start?

How can you incorporate these outdoor sculptures without overshadowing the natural beauty of your garden? We will guide you through easy and affordable options to create metal lawn ornaments that will enhance your outdoor space. From beginner designs to affordable intricate pieces, get set to turn your garden into an enchanting outdoor gallery.

Materials Needed

Before you begin, gather the necessary materials for your DIY metal lawn ornaments. These items can be found at your local hardware store or online:

• metal sheets
• tin snips
• drill and bits
• hammer and nails
• welder or metal adhesive
• protective equipment
• design template

Simple Design Ideas

If you’re new to metalworking or looking for a quick and easy project, here are some simple design ideas for DIY metal lawn ornaments. Get creative and add a personalized touch to your outdoor space!

Candelabra

Cut out large circles from the metal sheet and use tin snips to create zig-zag patterns around the edges. Attach multiple circles with nails or weld them at the center to create a candelabra.

Wind Chimes

Cut out various sizes of metal circles and drill holes near the edges. String them together with wire or fishing line, creates a beautiful wind chime.

Garden Stakes

Cut out different shapes from the metal sheets, such as flowers or butterflies, and attach them to long metal rods. These stakes can be placed throughout your garden, adding pops of color and design.

Garden Sculptures

Use a template or create your design for a metal sculpture, such as animals or abstract shapes. Cut out the pieces, weld or glue them together, and place them in your garden for an eye-catching piece of art.

Advanced Design Ideas

For those with more experience in metalworking or looking for a challenge, here are some advanced design ideas. Explore intricate welding techniques to push your skills to the next level.

Metal Arbors

Create an elegant entrance to your garden by welding together metal pieces into an arbor. You can add vines or other plants to grow around it and create a stunning focal point.

Garden Benches

Cut out long strips of metal and use a bending tool to create the curved shape of a bench. Weld or bolt the pieces together and add cushions for a comfortable seating option in your garden.

Metal Water Features

Using metal sheets, you can create beautiful water features such as fountains or ponds. These not only add visual interest but also provide soothing sounds of running water.

For those looking for more inspiration or specific design templates, browsing online resources such as Lesera can provide a wealth of ideas and products to ignite your creativity. They offer garden decorations that can either complement your DIY projects or inspire new ones with their unique designs.

Discovering About Metal Lawn Ornaments

DIY metal lawn ornaments are a budget-friendly way to add character and charm to your outdoor space. With the right materials and creativity, you can create unique pieces of art that will bring joy to your garden for years to come.

So gather your materials, choose a design, and get ready to impress your friends and family with your handmade metal yard art ornaments. Transform your outdoor space with creativity and enjoy the process of crafting unique pieces.

Did you find this article helpful? If so, check out the rest of our site for more informative content.

The post DIY Metal Lawn Ornaments: Easy and Affordable Options appeared first on Granite Grok.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic convened a hearing on Feb. 15 titled “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1.” Intended to bolster public confidence in vaccines by reviewing the nation’s data systems used to track reports of adverse events following vaccination, the subcommittee’s initial hearing also focused on vaccine injury compensation programs.

Vaccine Injury Compensation

Ohio Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) opened the proceedings with a brief history of vaccine injury programs in the US. Rep. Wenstrup explained that most vaccine injuries are compensated under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), but that claims of harm from COVID-19 “countermeasures” are covered under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) authorized by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) of 2005.

Wenstrup expressed his concern that poor government support of vaccine injury victims could undermine public trust and fuel vaccine hesitancy:

“As of January 2024, CICP has only compensated 11 claims out of the more than 12,000 that have been filed for COVID-19 vaccines. Because of its design, CICP payouts are also significantly smaller than VICP – an average of about $3,700 compared with almost $500,000 dollars in VICP. It appears that CICP may not be designed or equipped to handle a vaccine that was so widely distributed – and mandated for many – as COVID-19 vaccines were. I have concerns that we wouldn’t be able to expect people to line up and get vaccinated during the next pandemic if they feel they are abandoned.”

Three Wise Men?

Three authoritative figures testified before the Select Subcommittee:

Peter Marks, Director of the Biologics Evaluation and Research Division of the Food and Drug Administration, defended the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and attested to the usefulness of injury reporting programs.

Daniel Jernigan, Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Jernigan stated that “CDC staff have analyzed data from over a million VAERS adverse event reports,” but also failed to address the victim compensation aspect of current legislation.

George Reed Grimes, Director of the Division of Injury Compensation Programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration, oversees both CICP and VICP. Grimes explained the stark differences in payments between injuries from COVID-19 vaccines (CICP) versus most other vaccines (VICP), but also standards of proof – CICP awards require “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence” that their injury was the “direct result” of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Grimes cited the President’s FY 2024 Budget of $15 million to operate the CICP, which now has over 35 full-time staff members:

“Additionally, due to other improvements, the CICP is now processing claims at a faster rate. For example, in 2020, the CICP averaged zero claims resolved per month; in 2023, the CICP resolved more than 90 claims per month – that average would be expected to increase even more significantly under the President’s FY 2024 Budget.”

The government is spending tens of millions of dollars to handle approximately 13,000 CICP claims at the rate of 90 per month, which works out to a bit over twelve years to process existing claims – assuming no more are filed. An October 2023 Reuters report claimed that 97% of processed COVID-related claims so far (1,129 out of 12,000) had been denied and 32 found eligible, with “[f]our people to date hav[ing] actually been paid, receiving an average of $2,148 each.” There is no right to appeal or introduce witnesses.

To spend $15 million annually to take twelve years to deny 97% of complaints and only pay out $2,000 in 2024 dollars each is a strong disincentive for vaccine injury victims to bother filling out the paperwork. It is also a result that might leave Americans distrustful of the government, as Wenstrup explained in his opening remarks:

“… while serious injuries caused by vaccines are rare, the government has assumed the responsibility to compensate for them. In doing so, vaccine manufacturers have been shielded from liability. Therefore, the government has an important duty – one that is essential in preserving trust in vaccines and how we message completely and honestly about them.”

A Ready Solution

One proposed solution would be for Congress to redirect COVID-19 claims to VICP, which already hears claims more quickly with a clearer process and more generous awards. This program is funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine and would instill much more confidence in an mRNA-leery public than the CICP labyrinth.

Grimes seemingly intimated his support for this initiative:

“HRSA is committed to working with Congress to ensure that the resources and staffing are available to increase CICP claim reviews and processing. Furthermore, without congressional action, HHS does not have the administrative authority on its own to move claims from the CICP to VICP.”

Dr. Meryl Nass, a Maine physician who has questioned the official narrative on COVID-19 vaccinations, offered this opinion to Liberty Nation:

“My question for the Select Subcommittee would be, ‘Why are there no victims testifying? There have been a lot of problems with official assessments of vaccine safety. Why not ask those who have suffered?’”

Transferring COVID-19 claims to the VICP would improve fairness to injured Americans, whether or not it restored trust in mRNA vaccines. The Biden Administration determined that COVID-19 claims would remain in CICP through 2024: the bipartisan “Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act” seeks to “shift pending COVID-19 vaccine claims from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to the VICP.”

Perhaps this problem will be addressed by the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, at “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 2.”

 

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

The post Night Cap: Vaccine Safety Heads to Congress appeared first on Granite Grok.