Now comes, the Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 16 (7), respectfully gives notice of a new compelling authority from the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States “SCOTUS”, decided May 23, 2024 in the matter of ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, No. 22-807 602 U.S.___ (2024). [Hereinafter, “Alexander”]. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Argued October 11, 2023—Decided May 23, 2024, hereinafter Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP 602 U.S.___ (2024) (See attached exhibit A), where the Plaintiff here argues as compelling precedent applicable to the case at bar.

Accordingly, the Appellant respectfully submits to the court, where Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP—above, is an election law case reaffirming the Appellants previous citation of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen No. 20-843 (U.S. June 23, 2022), and the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), on August 14, 2023, in the Appellants motion for late authorities this authority is not only appropriate but precedent in the present New Hampshire case, argued and awaiting release of the NH state court decision.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joining the majority opinion by concurring in part, in the Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP decision, reinforces the precedent of Moore v. Harper, in the examination of the elections clause of the Constitution for the United States, Article I, §4, cl. 1, reinforcing judicial review by State and Federal Courts who both possess the authority to exercise judicial review also over state legislative actions affecting the time, manner, and place of conducting Federal Elections.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP   has tied Moore v. Harper (2023) and Bruen (2022) together and reinforces the Appellants arguments, by stating a fact in law, that the standard of review for examination of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Const. including the Federal Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1, must be examined under Heller/Bruen methodology, and not by means-end scrutiny.

Quoting Justice Thomas:

Although States have the initial duty to draw district lines, the Elections Clause commits exclusive supervisory authority over the states drawing of congressional districts to Congress—not federal courts. It provides: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may it any time by – Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1. The first part of the Clause “imposes a duty upon” state legislatures to “prescribe the details necessary to hold congressional elections.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 862 (1995) (Thomas J., dissenting). The second part “grants power exclusively to Congress” to police the state legislatures’ performance of their duty. Id., at 864. Critically, the Clause leaves the Judiciary out of the districting process entirely.

The Clause’s assignment of rules is comprehensive. For example, a state legislature’s responsibility over congressional elections “‘transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State’” through other state actors; the state legislature is the exclusive state authority. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 58 (2023) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 137, (1922)). In a similar vein, the Clause makes Congress the exclusive federal authority over States’ efforts to draw congressional districts, to the exclusion of the courts.

The historical record compels this interpretation of the Elections Clause text. gerrymandering and vote delusion are not new phenomena. The founding generation was familiar with political districting problems from the American colonial experience. See Vieth, 541 U.S., at 274 (collecting examples). But, the framers nowhere suggested the federal courts as a potential solution to those problems. Instead, they relied on congressional oversight. The framers’ considered choice of a non-judicial remedy is highly relevant to context to the interpretation of the elections clause. See New York State rifle& pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26—27 (2022). See pages 26 and 27 in the Bruen decision below. 

Bruen provides:

We categorize these historical sources, because, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 634—635 (emphasis added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; -pg. 25.

-the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions change in the intervening years. It is one thing for courts to “reac[h] back to the 14th century” for English practices that “prevailed up to the ‘period immediately before and after the framing of the Constitution.’” Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. 554 U.S. 269, 311 (2008) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting). It is quite another to rely on in an “ancient” practice that had become “obsolete in England at the time of the adaptation of the Constitution” and never “was acted upon or accepted in the colonies.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 477 (1935).

Sometimes, in interpreting our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 382 (1983), unless evidence shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’ law. A long, unbroken line of common-law precedent stretching from Braxton to Blackstone is far more likely to be part of our law than a short-lived, 14th century English practice. –pg. 26

Thomas has said specifically that these two pages apply as the corrected standard of review of constitutional interpretation of the Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1.

Similarly, we must also guard against giving post enactment history more weight than it can rightly bear. It is true – pg. 26.

–that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the second amendment was interpreted from immediately after it’s ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” 554 U.S., at 605. We therefore examined “a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of [the Second Amendment] after its… ratification.” Ibid. And, in other context, we have explained that “‘a regular course of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of’ disputed or intermediate ‘terms & phrases’” in the Constitution. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 13) (quoting Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908)); see also, e.g.,  Houston Community college System v. Wilson, 595 U.S.___, ___, (2022) (slip op. at 5) (same); The Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison); see generally C. Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 10—21 (2001); W. Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, 71 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2019). In other words, we recognize that “where A governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision.” [Emphasis added.] NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 174 (1926); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 905 (1997). —pg. 27

            But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls. [Emphasis added.] “‘[L]iquidating’ indeterminacies in written laws is far removed from expanding or altering them.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __, __ (2019) (Thomas, J. concurring) (slip op., at 13); see also Letter from James Madison 477 (G. Hunt ed. 1910). Thus, “post-ratification adaptation or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text – pg. 27

–obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.” – pg. 28. Heller, 670 F. 3d, at 1274, n. 6 (Kavanagh, J., dissenting); see also Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U.S. __, __, (2020) (slip op., at 15). 

Bruen stated that the Court has “made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government.” 142 S. Ct. at 2137.—pg. 39.

The Heller decision abolished means end scrutiny as a test for the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia writes the following for the majority:

Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurispruden­tial point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally ex­pressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important govern­ mental interests.” Post, at 689–690. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Jus­tice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: Be­cause handgun violence is a problem, because the law is lim­ited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposi­tion that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. – pg. 635

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted— pg. 634

them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guar­antee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrongheaded views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evalua­tion, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. – pg. 635.

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applica­tions of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 720–721. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in­ depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)— pg. 635.

Fifteen other cases in the last eleven months since June 2023 citing Moore v. Harper are predicated upon this same principle in law and include the following:

“Since early in our Nation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.”

“When government is alleged to have threatened any of [the provisions in the New Mexico Bill of [R]ights, it is the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply the protections of the Constitution.”

Grisham v. Soelen, 539 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2023) 09-22-2023. See also Griego , 2014-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 865; Hoffmann v. N.Y. State Ind. Redistricting Comm’n, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6344 (N.Y. 2023); Keefer v. Biden, CIVIL 1:24-CV-00147 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2024) Election Clause case.

Meanwhile, the Bruen decision has been cited 78 times since June 27, 2022.

WHEREFORE, THE APPELLANT respectfully submits this Notice of New Authorities for additional consideration in this case forthwith.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel Richard

Daniel Richard

 

 

 

 

The post Daniel Richard v. Christopher Sununu: Motion for Leave of the Court New Late Authorities appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Hush Money Trial of Donald Trump in New York is a stain on the American Justice system that had been the envy of the world. The justice system is another entity that President Joe Biden destroyed. Who could have predicted that Joe Biden, the guy from Scranton, could have successfully put a wrecking ball to so much of America?

Joe Biden has been a loser and liar his entire political life. He had to withdraw from two previous presidential bids for plagiarism and has suffered through three-plus years of lies in the White House. He had the cajones to cart out washed-up actor Robert DeNiro to read a prepared statement in front of the New York courtroom telling anyone who would listen how dangerous Donald Trump is. DeNiro, wearing a mask, was surrounded by a dozen thugs looking like a scene from Godfather 4, which was never shot. This fiasco was on the same day that Biden announced he would have a statement for the press at the conclusion of the trial. Biden is sadly salivating at the possibility of referring to his opponent as “Convicted Felon Donald Trump.” The house money is on acquittal, which is going to make Biden look like the horse’s ass he is. Joe Biden is shallow, devious, opportunistic, and a thief. He may also be guilty of treason, which will be the coup de grace of his legacy, and he can take Hunter down with him.

The trial entered the final arguments stage on Tuesday, after a trial when the crime was never divulged. This trial was scripted with the one intention of Biden being able to label his primary competitor a convicted felon. Every day of the trial gave ammunition for an appeal, but the one remaining fact loomed over the trial: there was no crime. The prosecution spent over five hours yesterday on its closing trying to convince the jury they could believe every word from Michael Cohen, who the defense labeled “The GLOAT” (the greatest liar of all time), and reminded the jury that Cohen had admittedly lied during his testimony. This entire sham of a trial is based on a nameless crime substantiated by a convicted perjurer.

This trial is a classic con game that distracts people from the real issues of the failed Joe Biden presidency. Look at Donald Trump, who is constrained to a chair in a courtroom and unable to campaign. Don’t look at the price at the gas pump. Don’t look at the thousands of young men crossing our southern border. Don’t look at the two wars we are funding. Don’t look at Biden defying the Supreme Court and transferring student loans to every American. Don’t look at the cost of your weekly shopping cart of groceries. This was the plan, but it is not working. The trial is not working out as planned by the Democrats, and people are not falling for the gaslighting. Biden has been trying to convince Americans he was on the right track and they needed to understand the new parameters. He actually insulted the intelligence level of Americans, and Americans do not forget being played for fools.

The post Night Cap: Six Week Trial And Nobody Knows The Crime appeared first on Granite Grok.

By now, bitter-clingers, you hopefully have read the prior two installments of this award-winning series: American Has Fallen … You Better Have and Exit Plan  and America Has Fallen (Continued). In our first installment, we discussed how the Woke-Communists have used their control of America’s institutions to turn Generation-Z into America-hating, Woke-Communist-bots:

Note that Generation-Z does NOT intend to have children. That dovetails nicely with the Woke-Communists Great Replacement project. The Woke-Communists preach that America is too White … that is one of the reasons, according to them, that America needs to transformed.

So the Woke-Communists convince Generation-Z NOT to have babies … for example, why have babies when climate-change is going to devastate the earth in a mere ten years. And they are bringing in illegal aliens in mind-boggling numbers to replace the babies that aren’t being born. Even in supposedly RED States:

And all of illegal aliens’ babies are American citizens by “birthright citizenship.” So even if the Woke-Communists do NOT succeed in getting voting for the present illegal aliens, in twenty years their children will be voting and will give the Woke-Communists permanent one-party rule.

America will be unrecognizable in twenty years. Unrecognizable. But just keep telling yourselves that all you need to do is click your heels together three times while repeating “there’s no place like MAGA” and everything will be alright.

The post America Has Fallen (Continued … Continued) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Madness at the Libertarian Convention, Ross Ulbricht gets a clemency promise from Trump, Victoria Sullivan’s Senate campaign launch, and more!



The post Manch Talk: Trump Booed at LP Convention and Yet … appeared first on Granite Grok.

I’m not telling you anything you don’t likely already know, but I felt we’d better acknowledge the verdict because people will want to know what we think about that.

There was no crime. The process was circus-like. Any effort to appeal the verdict will likely result in all counts being overturned, mostly because of how the trial was conducted.

I would not be surprised if the Judge gets into some deep “you know what” over this.

Everyone had better get their book deals soon because this thing ain’t over, and you’ll want to cash in before it all falls apart.

Trump’s polling will jump up, his fundraising will break records, and Dems will get overconfident.

Stay focused. The economy sucks, no one is happy about open borders or crime. Screengrab the progressive hate and save it.

 

The jury has found Donald Trump guilty on ALL 34 felony counts.

— erica orden (@eorden) May 30, 2024

 

One more (added after publication).

The post Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts … Riiiiiiight. appeared first on Granite Grok.

Dear Mr. Macdonald,

I feel your article was pretty biased because it was factually incorrect. Perhaps we can discuss where we agree or at least what is indisputable.

Related: New Hampshire’s “Red Flag” Camel’s Nose is Back! [Updated]

1. If you are involuntarily committed under our law in effect right now, you are automatically a “prohibited person” by federal law.
2. If you disclose this on your 4473, you will be denied
If you don’t, you’ve committed a felony.
3. Under current law, if you become a “prohibited person” for mental health reasons, you are banned for life unless your state has a “Restoration of Rights” law in place.
4. New Hampshire has no such law and therefore if you are prohibited for mental health reasons in NH you are banned for life.
5. You’re being a prohibited person is not dependent on the state reporting it. The federal law relies on the underlying condition that caused the prohibitions and not the state sharing the information with NICS. In other words, if you get convicted of a felony, and the state forgets to share it with NICS, and you lie on your 4473, you may purchase a gun, but you’re still guilty of being a felon in possession and of lying on the form. This applies to all prohibited persons.

Those are all indisputable facts.

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

Now for some lesser known facts.

1. There are, at best guess, 1000 people in the NICS registry from NH for mental health prohibitions
2. Doctors and therapists are mandated reporters in New Hampshire. If they have reason to believe one of their patients presents a realistic threat to themselves or a specific person, they must report it to the Department of Safety. The Department of Safety reports these to NICS. This is why I was an advocate of doing away with the New Hampshire Gun Line. If you recall, the big argument was they “have local information not available to NICS.” Ever wonder what that was? These people, whenever reported are banned for life from ever owning a gun again. They may have had a bad day. Their wife may have died. They may have said in a moment of weakness, “I just want to die”. Well they continue therapy and pull through it. They decide to get a new hunting rifle. They are denied. It takes them an enormous effort to figure out why, and when they do, there’s literally nothing they can do.
3. Yes, HB1711 would have reported the involuntarily committed to NICS, but as I said, they already are prohibited persons by that point. But more importantly, now they know it and aren’t surprised at the gun store, and they know exactly what they must do to get off the list.
4. This is the reason 48 other states submit these. Even the most progun states like Florida, Texas and Alabama. They do it because the people are already prohibited but need a way to fix that. They cannot take advantage of the law restoring their rights, of whichb they never got notification that they were reported in the first place.

Look, this is a very complex issue and I clearly did a poor job of explaining it to the members, but I can assure you thay I researched the Hell out of it. I even called the ATF and made them explain the process of people being able to get their rights back. You MUST have the Restoration of Rights in state law and it MUST meet the ATF requirements for people to be no longer considered prohibited. I followed it to a T. I even put a safety valve at the end that said no names could be provided until the ATF approved our Restoration of Rights laws.

Finally, bringing up my employment dispute from 30 years ago was a low blow. Yes, my PD tried to use the gun laws against me, but that leaves out a lot of information, like that it was immediately after I arrested a city councilor for OUI, and that I sued in federal court and they settled restoring my gun rights, withdrawing the termination, paying me back pay, and giving me a positive job recommendation. That being said, I am extremely sensitive to the system being used to take people’s rights, including the mentally ill. They are being reported now, and even the ones who aren’t, are still prohibited persons and are banned for the rest of their lives for something that may have been a temporary situation. This law would have helped them.

I picked David Meuse because he would deliver all the Democrat votes and, more importantly, keep them from campaigning on “Republicans refuse to do anything in the wake of the New Hampshire Hospital and Maine mass shooting.” If you notice, we heard none of the usual “we must bam guns” or “we need waiting periods” arguments for the last seven months since the shooting.

I think the 2nd Amendment community has to be more strategic and proactive if we want to continue winning on these issues. The other side is not sitting around waiting. They are constantly scheming for new ways to infringe on our rights. We are always reactive, trying to defend the indefensible. This was our chance to show the public, that we can do more than thoughts and prayers. When in the rare incidences where legislation is necessary, for Republicans, it is laser-focused and not broad, sweeping up everyone but the people who are actually causing the problem. Furthermore, where someone’s rights are impacted, we provide a pathway for them to get them back. Not one Democrat bill has ever done that.

As you said in your article, and I agree, it is my baby and I failed to properly sell it to everyone, but that doesn’t change any of the facts about it. It may be a camel’s nose under the tent, but it’s the camel trying to get out and get his rights back.

 

Editors Note: Earlier today, the NH Senate killed HB1711 for good this session. While that is what I was after, I did want to get Rep. Roy’s take published before that, but due to delays in approval for publication, we were not able to make that happen.

The post I Feel Your Article Was Pretty Biased Because It Was Factually Incorrect appeared first on Granite Grok.

Once upon a time, scientific inquiry was premised on ideas of objectivity, factual analysis, and avoiding bias. The advent of social justice theory, post-modernist thought, and climate alarmism have polluted the waters of many once-prestigious science journals. This political transformation of what was once called science has given rise to pseudo-scientific partisanship on both sides of almost every issue. The result is dubious science, public confusion, and growing distrust of the scientific community, including the CDC and other public institutions.

America is reportedly engaged in a “culture war” that is itself delineated by two scientific worlds. Was COVID-19 created in a lab using dubious gain-of-function research, or did it hop to humans in a live-animal market in Wuhan? Are hormone blockers and gender surgeries beneficial and lifesaving for youth suffering from gender dysphoria, or irreversible sterilizations with potentially deadly and horrid outcomes? Is the planet doomed to end in a decade due to human-caused carbon emissions, or are such claims overblown and alarmist? This atmosphere of scientific division is seeding public distrust.

The Politicization of Science

Science itself has been politicized, and many major science platforms have been tainted. An intriguing survey of this modern phenomenon by the Manhattan Institute’s James B. Meigs concludes:

“Unfortunately, progressive activists today begin with their preferred policy outcomes or ideological conclusions and then try to force scientists and journalists to fall in line. Their worldview insists that, rather than challenging the progressive orthodoxy, science must serve as its handmaiden. This pre-Enlightenment style of thinking used to hold sway only in radical political subcultures and arcane corners of academia. Today it is reflected even in our leading institutions and science publications.”

A Failure of Journalistic Integrity?

Previously vaunted publications such as The Lancet, Nature, and Scientific American have come under fire for controversial positions in many of these important public policy areas. Scientific American openly endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, claiming “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people,” a not very scientific claim. The outlet later became an ardent opponent of the lab-leak theory, in articles such as “Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth.” Bad science tainted with partisan bias may well damage the American people.

The result of this science-warping division is that citizens are becoming increasingly distrustful of scientific arguments and institutions. As the government seeks to stifle scientific inquiry contrary to its official endorsement of climate change, transgenderism, or the animal-transmission theory, disinformation, and misinformation have become linguistic terms of coercion. This further deteriorates public trust: no wonder more Americans have become “vaccine-hesitant,” a situation that is itself then employed to tamp down even harder on dissenting viewpoints. This vicious cycle seeds rancor and more societal division, in a vicious cycle that threatens scientific integrity as well as human health.

This muddying of the intellectual waters has been further compounded by a growth in shoddy scientific journals touting fraudulent “studies.” The Wall Street Journal reports that a “flood of fake science” has forced the closure of multiple journals “infected by large-scale research fraud.” The biggest casualty has been 217-year-old Hoboken, N.J. publisher, Wiley:

“In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.

“Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole.”

Finding Truth in a Post-Modern Chaos

In the not-so-distant past, readers critically seeking a balanced understanding of political or scientific issues could read the two sides and seek to find a middle ground. In the post-modern milieu of compromised science journals and partisan wrangling, both science and humanity suffer in a spiral that may not wane in time to prevent a major catastrophe. If facts are morphed willy-nilly to suit one’s socio-political agenda, nothing is reliable and there is no solid ground for either scientific or public policy.

As Meigs explains:

“….science is theoretically supposed to be insulated from political influence. Sadly, the new woke style of science journalism reframes factual scientific debates as ideological battles, with one side presumed to be morally superior. Not surprisingly, the crisis in science journalism is most obvious in the fields where public opinion is most polarized.”

The world seeks reliable data and policies with which to fashion crucial private and public decisions. The death of “real science” is a loss to both sides of the political aisle.

 

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

The post Social Justice Ideology Compromises “Real” Science appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Climate Cult’s Green Meanines have been blaming increased atmospheric CO2 for everything, including wildfires—and there is (sort of, kind of) a connection. Arsonists are starting fires when none begin on their own, and then the media and activists blame that on rising CO2.

Absent these acts of eco-terrorism, wildfires have declined in the modern era, but that’s no reason to slow your roll, and the Green goblins at UC Riverside have decided to take this argument out a whole new door.

CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, landing somewhere around 0.04% (even after the ‘damage’ caused by modernity). It is also essential to life on Earth, which thrives at significantly higher volumes. It is so critical that even the paltry rise in recent years has greened the planet. We’ve mentioned it a time or two. More CO2 means more robust and insect/disease-resistant plants. It is good for the biosphere and farming, especially in more arid regions.

F-you, the greens would say – that can’t possibly make up for the damage we claim it causes but can’t prove.

Introducing the newest new narrative. “CO2 worsens wildfires by helping plants grow.”

The worldwide surge in wildfires over the past decade is often attributed to the hotter, drier conditions of climate change. However, the study found that the effect of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on plants may be a bigger factor.

“It’s not because it’s hotter that things are burning, it’s because there’s more fuel, in the form of plants,” said UCR doctoral student in Earth and planetary sciences and study author James Gomez.

Do you know what else causes wildfires? Rain. Rain makes plants grow (especially wildgrass), which can lead to more wildfires. Drought can lead to wildfires. The poor forest management favored by eco-terrorists. The Eco-Terrorists (who are more responsible for the alleged surge but are never mentioned in the UC Riverside article). Lightning. But yeah, um … CO2.

“To convert light into food in a process called photosynthesis, plants require CO2. Burning fossil fuels for heat, electricity, and transportation is adding increasing levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants use the extra CO2 to make carbohydrates that help them grow, leading to an increase in biomass that burns.”

No CO2, no plants.

Another surprising admission, given the source

“We do need to implement better fire control and have more prescribed burns to use up plant fuel. We need to get rid of the old stuff,” Gomez said.

But Gomez may not eat or live as well if he doesn’t get more climate research grants, so,

“But the best way to decrease wildfires is to mitigate our carbon dioxide emissions. We need more emission control now.”

The issue with Gomez’s plan is that it relies on the West kneecapping itself, while second—and third-world countries are never going to give up a chance at indoor plumbing, flush toilets, and the longer life expectancy that comes from abundant, affordable energy, triple, and quadruple their “emissions.”

Nothing we do can or will address the alleged problem. Gomez and the rest of the Green Addams Family need to go to Asia, India, and Africa and explain to them why they need to continue to live in poverty to sustain the lie.

Or, Gomez could admit he’s a tool of the Marxist using this scam to undermine free markets and capitalism, but that would assume he knows the truth.

The post “Experts” Admit CO2 Greens The Earth … But That’s Bad! appeared first on Granite Grok.

The landscape of subscriptions is undergoing rapid transformation. What was once known as the “subscription economy” has swiftly evolved into the “subscriber economy,” signaling a significant shift in consumer power. Today’s consumers seek access to diverse content beyond TV and movies, including music, lifestyle, gaming, food, health, fitness, and more. Bundling emerges as a vital strategy in meeting these evolving consumer needs. Combining various products or services into attractive packages, cable bundling attracts new subscribers to YouTube TV and revenue streams and helps mitigate customer churn.

Subscriber Bundling Strategy and Its Benefit

Ensuring subscriber loyalty lies at the heart of thriving subscription-based businesses. The key to retaining devoted subscribers is guaranteeing ongoing value from their subscriptions. Given the tendency for subscribers to set up their subscriptions and overlook them, maintaining a top-of-mind presence becomes a challenge for subscription enterprises.

Herein lies the potential of subscription bundles: they offer additional value by integrating supplementary products or services that enrich the existing subscription experience. The trend is clear: savvy subscription enterprises are turning increasingly to bundles as a strategic tool to balance churn and maintain subscriber satisfaction. Subscription bundles of various streaming platforms like YouTube TV offer flexibility, with the freedom to switch subscriptions according to their preferences.

Bundles offer mutual advantages for both users and brands alike. Users benefit from improved economics in their subscription experience, the opportunity to explore new services without immediate financial commitment, and relief from subscription fatigue. Brands, on the other hand, find that bundles aid in retaining their current audience while attracting new ones. Additionally, bundles grant publishers access to firsthand customer data, enhancing their understanding of their audience’s preferences and behaviors. There are different categories of subscription bundling. Do you know what they are?

• Cross-platform bundling involves integrating various subscriptions, such as music with video-on-demand (VOD) services or a cellular plan with complimentary VOD access. This strategy allows users to enjoy a diverse range of services across multiple platforms, enhancing their overall entertainment experience while maximizing the value of their subscriptions.
• Content bundling refers to packing content into bundles, often combining video-on-demand (VOD) services with live TV offerings. Examples include platforms like YouTube TV or Hulu + Live TV, which stream a variety of major broadcast and cable networks directly to users’ devices.
• Ecosystem bundling involves conglomerates of big tech companies bundling various services into comprehensive packages with numerous perks. Prominent instances of this approach include Amazon Prime, which offers free shipping and access to movies, books, and other exclusive features.

Now that you have understood different bundling subscription services, let’s look at why you should opt for this as a customer.

Streamlines your bill payment procedure

Juggling monthly bills can become burdensome, particularly amidst a busy schedule filled with work and personal obligations. Without an efficient management strategy, it’s easy to overlook payments, leading to frustrating scenarios like internet disconnection due to missed payments. Bundling services offer a solution to such issues. By combining your internet service and TV package, you’ll receive a single, consolidated bill each month. This simplifies your monthly budgeting and streamlines the payment process, minimizing hassle and settling bills.

Save Money from Overpaying

Combining internet and streaming services into bundles presents notable cost-saving opportunities compared to subscribing to each service individually. Bundling allows you to access exclusive discounts and unavailable promotions when purchasing these services separately. Moreover, consolidating your services into a single bundle eliminates the hassle of managing multiple monthly bills, simplifying expense management.

Access to Various Content

Although individual streaming services offer unique content libraries, subscribing to just one means you are capped to what that particular provider delivers. However, bundling your services opens up a world of possibilities, allowing you to access the diverse options available across multiple platforms. For instance, while Disney+ hosts the entire Disney animated catalog, ESPN+ features original sports documentaries. You can relish your favorite sports content and cherished childhood Disney memories. With streaming platforms, you can broaden your entertainment horizons by exploring new shows, movies, and genres, including international content.

Conclusion

Staying competitive in a saturated market demands ongoing innovation and adaptability to cater to subscribers’ continuously changing needs and preferences. Introducing bundle subscriptions to different streaming platforms like YouTube TV can prove highly effective in addressing subscriber fatigue, enhancing convenience, improving customer experience, and attracting new subscribers. Given its numerous advantages, bundling may be the default solution for every SVOD (subscription video on demand) provider.

The post Don’t Overpay on Subscriptions – Bundling is Where It’s At! appeared first on Granite Grok.