Recent signals by Pope Francis that the Catholic Church may soften its stance on homosexuality have created division and distress for traditional Catholic believers who seek to adhere to Scripture. Influenced by liberation theology (premised on Marxist tenets), the Pope increasingly employs social justice terminology, universalism, and naive globalist aspirations in his proclamations.

The apparent contradictions of this shift appear lost on a naive Pope who embraces a New World Government that advocates for abortion as “life-giving care” and indoctrinates young children into sexuality and transgenderism. This tension strains scriptural truths to the point of abandonment.

The Pope and Schwab

Pope Francis makes no effort to obscure his admiration for Klaus Schwab. He echoed POTUS Biden’s call to “build back better” following COVID and called for a New World Order in 2021:

In true globalist phraseology, Pope Francis has called for a “new world order” following the COVID-19 “pandemic.” He also advocated for global change on “green” issues, warning that “we cannot waste any more time.” He called the COVID “pandemic” an “alarm signal on which humanity is forced to reflect,” referring to the “cornerstones of reconstruction” which would be a key part of his new world order. “This time of trial can thus become a time of wise and far-sighted choices for the good of humanity, of all humanity,” he added.

This is not a tenuous connection – the Davos parish (where the WEF meets) has conducted “silence and prayer” vigils during WEF meetings “to pray precisely for the intention that good decisions might be made for a more just and peaceful world.” The Pope promotes a “new economic system” and has partnered with the UN despite its abortion advocacy and support for comprehensive sex education:

Such deepening ties with globalist corporations and leaders lend further credence to beliefs that Pope Francis is aligned with the WEF’s call for a “Great Reset.” He has referenced a “supranational common good” and said that “there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”

The WEF’s Pope

These deepened ties include the Pope’s appeals to the WEF. In his “Message of the Holy Father to the Executive Chairman of the “World Economic Forum,”” Pope Francis makes a patently humanist social justice appeal:

In these years, the World Economic Forum has offered an opportunity for the engagement of diverse stakeholders to explore innovative and effective ways of building a better world. The overriding consideration, never to be forgotten, is that we are all members of the one human family. The moral obligation to care for one another flows from this fact. [It] is incumbent upon business sectors and governments alike, and is indispensable in the search for equitable solutions to the challenges we face. May your deliberations lead to a growth in solidarity, especially with those most in need, who experience social and economic injustice and whose very existence is even threatened.

An Improper Alliance

This melding of liberation theology with social justice toxicity is evident in phraseologies such as “equitable solutions,” “economic injustice,” and “growth in solidarity.” This is the language not of Christian theology but neo-Marxist secular globalist hegemony. Denigrating individualism and calling to amplify the moral authority of globalist government, the Pope appears to have forgotten Revelation’s caution about End Times:

“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).

Christians of all denominations must resist global socialist government of any kind. The immoral proliferation by the UN and WEF of abortion, as well as transgender and sexual indoctrination of children, make these dubious allies for people of scripture-based faith. Including Pope Francis.

 

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

The post Pope Francis and the Quest for a One-World Religion appeared first on Granite Grok.

Your ‘Voice’ Matters! 

At GraniteGrok.com, we believe in the power of truly independent media and the extraordinary change that happens when we support it. This Giving Tuesday, we ask for your support to help us keep that promise alive.

Why Give to GraniteGrok

Your donation doesn’t just fund a website; it fuels a vehicle for citizens like yourself to be heard—a way for truth to break through the veil of corporate media.

By supporting GraniteGrok, you are investing in the future of independent media by financially supporting those committed to its continued success in the coming year.

Every day, we strive to make a difference. From education and health freedom to political accountability and election integrity – from your town to statewide – sometimes across the nation and even around the world.

 

 

How You Can Help

Please Donate: Every dollar brings us one step closer to our annual goal. Visit either of our Donation pages (also here) to contribute securely and easily. You can also donate by check (email steve@GraniteGrok.com for a mailing address).

Share Our #GivingTuesday Campaign via email and on social media. Your voice has the power to inspire others and amplify the impact.

Consider Donating Your Skills. We are always looking for local voices, young and old, to help reach more readers and open more minds to the service and value that independent media can provide.

 

 

The Future?

GraniteGok has always been a labor of love, but to achieve a greater impact in every community, it must become more. We rely on your generosity and an investment in independent voices to do that.

I hope you agree and Thank You so very much for your continued support.

 

With gratitude,

Steve MacDonald – Owner/Managing Editor, GraniteGrok.com

 

 

The post Giving Tuesday: By Giving Today, You Can Help Us Make a Difference Every Day appeared first on Granite Grok.

Arizona State University must be rolling in the glory of this wisdom, imparted by two ASU profs who’ve started a discussion about why Free Speech on Campus is not just overrated but dangerous. My First thought? Their sort of speech sounds dangerous, but they got to say it.

The premise is this.

 

Our contention is that calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose, namely, the production of expert knowledge and understanding, in the sense of disciplinarily warranted opinion.

 

These must be really smart people who, presumably, questioned nothing as they climbed the educational ladder of success, making the best means for passing accumulated groupthink to future generations. Unfortunately, someone has to decide. Which groupthink? There are thousands of campuses with many more thousands of experts. Not all of them agree on much of everything, and some don’t agree on anything, let alone whose expertise will define “expert knowledge.”

The ASU authors try to get around this trip wire by being who they are: Pompous, navel-gazing, self-absorbed pr!cks.

 

 Expertise requires freedom of speech, but it is the result of a process of winnowing and refinement that is premised on the understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Efforts to “democratize” opinion are antithetical to the role colleges play in educating the public and informing democratic debate. We urge administrators toward caution before uncritically endorsing calls for intellectual diversity in place of academic expertise…

 

And Suddenly diversity is bad, and again, whose bad? Which bright lights are the ones into which we must walk? No one will agree, and if you don’t lead with the BIPOC community or the coalition of Left-Handed Albino Lesbian Scholars, many of whom will also not agree, you are begging for an “idea- illogical” civil war.

Violence is, of course, inevitable because what you seek, like everything else cast out of the progressive void, is impossible.

Free speech and vigorous debate is simply the best answer because the alternative is, well – this. A police power that compartmentalizes words, ideas, and thoughts that would not stop at the edge of campus. Nothing that intellectuals think on a college campus stays there, leading to a nation in which the people who thought up the idea (starting with two ASU professors) are not permitted to think or speak themselves.

Policing generations of mindless matriculators will only lead to the notion that free speech is antithetical to democracy and the Republic and that it should be prevented as quickly and as painfully as possible.

That is the trap.

As with any progressive policy, advocates assume they’ll always control the power behind it or that the power will tolerate them as if it owes them something, and that is never how it ends. We all end up against the wall, and it often starts with two idiots who are so smart they are stupid.

 

 

HT | HotAir

The post Night Cap: ASU Professors Argue That Free Speech on Campus Is a Bad Idea … appeared first on Granite Grok.

The insurance company CEO reflected on how Obamacare had delivered everything his industry could have hoped for. The new massive bureaucracy had strengthened his industry’s monopoly on private healthcare dollars.

President Obama’s promise to lower healthcare premium costs was just one of the many deceptions he used to sell Obamacare to the public and now each State was mandated to have Obamacare private healthcare insurance exchanges. President Obama’s fraudulent promises dissolved away as insurance companies raised rates and gobbled up the premiums. Combining Obamacare premiums with the funds their healthcare insurance products generated, the healthcare insurance companies now controlled all private healthcare dollars.

Obamacare was really a massive omnibus-like law that touched all aspects of American healthcare. It contained Medicare stabilizing taxes and funded Medicaid expansion by taking billions of dollars earmarked for Medicare and directing it to new Medicaid spending. And mandated all employers with more than 50 employees had to provide standard healthcare. There were also some long-sought-after reforms. Insurance companies could no longer refuse coverage because of preexisting conditions, the million-dollar cap on lifetime insurance coverage was done away with, and families could keep their children on their plan until the age of 25.

All States had to establish healthcare exchanges, and all Americans had to purchase healthcare or be subject to severe penalties. The healthcare exchange financing was achieved by forcing healthy young Americans to pay expensive healthcare premiums; in effect, America’s youth would pay for older, sicker Americans’ healthcare. When the penalties for those who did not purchase Obamacare-mandated healthcare were done away with, the program’s funding imploded. In any sane world, a program without funding would end. But in America, the insurance companies raised premiums, and to keep the Obamacare exchanges on life support, the US Treasury simply printed more money.

President Trump failed on his promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. With the onset of COVID-19, President Biden opened the federal spigots for even more massive deficit subsidy spending.

The insurance company CEO mused that giving Americans access to cost-controlled affordable healthcare would not be difficult. But regardless of any plan’s logistics, no plan would be successful without an irrevocable deal with the American people; in short, those who worked and their families would have access to affordable quality healthcare. Hard work was the universal currency of America’s success, and rewarding Americans for work was the carrot that would make the plan psychologically viable. Able-bodied Americans who refused to work would be left to their own devices.

Parts of Obamacare had to be preserved. The taxes designed to stabilize Medicare and mandating that companies with greater than 50 employees had to provide quality healthcare were essential. Getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusions, allowing children up to the age of 25 to stay on family plans, along with doing away with the million-dollar limit on how much insurance companies would pay needed to stay. Medicaid had to be addressed, but the way Obamacare did it was fatally flawed, and for the country to be fiscally solvent, it had to be revisited. (fixing this will be for another time).

Creating a massive bureaucracy of healthcare exchanges was never necessary. Allowing access to the already available national federal employee healthcare networks would do the trick. The system would work as follows:

Small businesses and the self-employed would be given similar healthcare tax incentives that large corporations enjoyed. Allowing small businesses/self-employed to give an employee up to $10,0000 healthcare-directed stipend would, in effect, pay for the bulk of an individual’s/family’s healthcare insurance costs. Like the tax perks that large corporations and employees under their umbrella enjoy, the stipend would be tax-deductible to small businesses and tax-free to the individual. Healthcare savings accounts with yearly pretax contribution maximums of $5000 could be used for any kind of healthcare expenses, including premiums, and this would finish the needed healthcare financing mechanism. With these policies in place, all working Americans could affordably purchase health insurance and additional funds set aside for possible deductible liabilities.

It is true that the government would be getting less tax revenue, but the tax cuts would be directed toward hard-working middle-class Americans as well as small businesses, the driving force of the economy. Indexed to income, subsidies would be required for lower-wage earners to purchase healthcare insurance. And so, the promise to make affordable healthcare available to anyone who wanted it and worked could be kept.

Working Americans who were not eligible for health insurance through their employer would have access to affordable healthcare. Quality would be assured because the healthcare insurance these workers obtained would be the same as our elected officials/federal employees.

If this workable healthcare plan replaced the Obamacare insurance exchanges with the federal benefits healthcare network, the insurance companies would cry foul. Because these new federal benefit enrollees would be from a different risk pool than the usual federal employees, and cost much more. This claim is dubious but “high-risk pools” of people could be identified and appropriate federal monies allocated to make the insurance companies whole. To make the entire system cost controlled the federal government would have to limit the insurance company’s ability to increase their premiums to inflation -1% and limit all administrative costs at 10%. (See the first healthcare piece).

The medical insurance CEO smiled to himself because he knew this workable healthcare solution would never happen. When Obamacare was first passed the bill had a mandate that all of Congress and their staff had to use Obamacare as their health care insurance. When the members of Congress and their staffs were faced with this reality, the howling and gnashing of teeth became so intense that President Obama illegally exempted Congress and their staff from the Obamacare mandate. They were allowed to continue to use the federal employee benefits program.

There is no way politicians were ever going to take the chance that “their health care” would be compromised. Obamacare and all its problems were for the masses, not for them.

The Obamacare private healthcare exchanges have since evolved into catastrophic healthcare coverage. Many lower- and middle-class Americans take the government’s subsidies but cannot afford the at least $5000 deductible, and if the deductible comes due, they become financially insolvent. The healthcare CEO knew the woke progressive elites needed to keep their base dependent on the government, and they would never prioritize work as a key piece of a successful healthcare plan.

And so, in 2024, when the massive COVID-19 Obamacare subsidies come to an end, the elite progressives will find a way to renew the unnecessary budget-busting subsidies—propping up the unsustainable program with more government deficit spending.

Since the present private/Obamacare healthcare system is unsustainable, the specter of socialized government healthcare looms in all our tomorrows.

But the health insurance CEO was still smiling because he knew:

Private healthcare and private hospitals would spring from the ashes of America’s burned-out private healthcare system. He and his colleagues would only have to deal with the upper echelons of society. The rest of us will be herded like cattle into a socialized rationed healthcare system run by the government with the same care and quality they show our veterans in the VA system.

 

The post The Future of Obama Care and America appeared first on Granite Grok.

We are reminded of the well-worn adage, “The left Always Tells you who they fear.” Donald Trump, obviously. Judge (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh as well as Justice Clarance Thomas. And Elon Musk the moment he purchased Twitter under the auspices of restoring free speech to the platform.

We can debate just how free the speech there is, but not long after Master Elon began to work the flush handle at Twitter, the media began to promote what it marketed as Zuckerberger Meister Berger’s “Twitter-like” competitor. Threads. It was an Instagram side-car that the Musk-Hating media “advertised” with breathless hyperbole.

The free press can be like that when you promote its competition, free speech. They announced that Twitter is dying. Twitter is at death’s door. And look at this shiny thing over here. But Twitter isn’t even Twitter anymore, even though users still tweet. The little blue bird can still be found, and according to Google, ‘X’ has more organic traffic than either Instagram or Facebook.

 

Guess we’re not dead yet https://t.co/gokmvwFMiw

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 23, 2023

But what of Threads? For starters, it had been lying around doing little since 2019 when Facebook first introduced it. Most of the social media world had never heard of it, and even Instagram users were indifferent. But Twitter’s transition from messaging stooge for Biden’s information despotism to something less controlling introduced millions to Threads almost overnight. It was the Left’s new darling, but it only took a few days for folks to understand why it had languished for three years prior. It wasn’t all that shiny after all.

 

Everyone on Instagram likely got many hints to check it out, and they did. Threads is Instagram’s text app, and you have to have an Instagram account to have a Threads account. Built-in users and multi-platform growth made the boom of an “opening” easy, but they can’t make you use Threads. Instagram users took a bit of the serpent-offered apple, set it down, and walked away – at least for the moment. But Meta, as in I never ‘Meta’ Zuckerberg platform that didn’t censor content, appears to have done a lot right with the interface and integrations, according to reports.

 

The reports were all lies. It was crap. And now it’s dead.

 

As reported by TechCrunch, the app will be deactivated by the end of December. Starting November 23, users will receive a message saying that Threads is being discontinued and will no longer work. Users will be redirected to the main Instagram app when they try to send messages through the Threads app.

When Threads was introduced, Instagram said it was designed to let close friends communicate with each other. However, the app never became that popular among Instagram users – one of the main reasons the app is being discontinued.

 

The Platform is live for a few more days before it goes dark forever, and Elon is likely working that Cheshire grin of his while still under constant fire from the Left. The threat of an even slightly more open Twitter (pronounced X) is more than the Progressives can handle.

Remember. The Left always tells you who they fear.

 

HT | ZeroHedge

The post Meta’s “Threads” Dies as Musk’s Platform Tops Facebook and Instagram for Organic Traffic appeared first on Granite Grok.

Despite the numerous permanent problems faced by public healthcare systems, a significant number of people (such as citizens, politicians, and doctors) still seem to deem them necessary and believe that the problems associated with them can be solved by, for example, better management, increased expenditure, or central planning. Therefore, in this essay, the main arguments in favor of a gradual departure from public systems will be presented alongside the benefits of (unhampered) market solutions.

1. The Public System Overly Restricts the Role of the Consumer

In the market, despite the important role of entrepreneurs and capitalists, it is the consumer who is the most important link. In the economic sense, the whole process and organization of the production structure is subordinated to consumers. They are the ones to decide the success or failure of entrepreneurs because everything is subordinated to their satisfaction. The greatest “weapon” in their hands is the freedom of choice. Entrepreneurs have no other option than to meet their needs in the best possible way.

Therefore, meeting their health needs under market conditions would produce many benefits. The consumer would be free to choose from the offers of health insurance or entities providing their services directly. Competition processes would emphasize improving quality, lowering prices, or offering a wider range of goods and services.

Meanwhile, in the case of public systems, there is no mention of consumers, only patients, the insured, or beneficiaries. Although the public system seems to be subordinated to them, the impression is false. The insured have little or no influence on how much money will be allocated to specific services, which doctor will be assigned to them, and when, or what means or technology they will be treated with. In short, their key role as consumers in the public system is strongly marginalized, if not eliminated altogether, while their sovereign decisions are replaced by arbitrary procedures devised by officials and politicians.

2. The Public System Adversely Restricts the Role of the Producer/Supplier

In the case of the manufacturers and suppliers of medical services, the situation is very similar. If they wish to operate within the public system, they must meet a series of criteria imposed on them not by the consumers guided by their value judgments but by a bureaucratic system, which further inflates the costs. Although these manufacturers and suppliers are private entities, they can never fully develop their capacities as they would be able to do under market conditions.

They gain more freedom when operating outside the public system, but due to its universality, the number of customers is limited in advance. Not everyone can afford to pay a second time. Another problem may be further regulations limiting the scope of services offered on the market so that they cannot compete with public solutions.

Furthermore, another adverse effect of this situation may be the belief of a part of the population that public systems, known for their problems, nevertheless offer “free” healthcare, while market solutions, despite the better availability of services, offer higher prices.

3. The Public System Leads to the Creation of an Irrational Structure for the Financing of Medical Services

The universal healthcare system imposes taxes and premiums on the “insured” to finance access to medical services. It also leads to the creation of a single-payer system—a state-owned insurer responsible for the appropriate allocation of the funds obtained in this way. However, such “insurance” has nothing to do with market insurance, where the calculation of premiums based on the health risk of the insured plays a key role. Moreover, one cannot get insurance against all possible occurrences, such as against events that have already occurred or in cases where it is not possible to apply the theory of probability and thus estimate the risk.

“Lumping” everyone together into one “bag” or pot also has the fatal property that the insured do not purchase medical services based on the price system. This applies both to correctly assessed health insurance premiums and to direct payments. The direct expenditure on specific medical goods or services is marginalized, which makes it difficult to discern the situation. “Free” healthcare creates the illusion of abundance and accessibility when, in fact, artificially stimulated demand leads to queues and limited access to services.

Another disadvantage is that the single (public) payer is also the main buyer of medical technology. Because it pays for it with money that is not its own, it does not show the characteristics of a frugal consumer. Suppliers are also aware that there are no mass and individual consumers behind their purchases. Therefore, they do not have sufficient motivation to reduce costs and prices, even tending to artificially inflate them.

4. The Public System Introduces a Bad Relationship between the Patient and the Doctor

Another group that cannot properly spread their wings in the public system is doctors. To save money, they are burdened with a lot of administrative responsibilities that distract them from their patients. Each procedure, order of research, or consultation must be described, and the expenditure of funds on it must be justified. This has at least two negative consequences. First, physicians must comply with systemic guidelines rather than the needs of patients. Second, when attending to patients, physicians spend more time at their desks absorbed in paperwork. As a result, the public system has a negative impact on the development of the relationship between the patient and the doctor.

Health is an intimate sphere of the patient, and therefore, the patient’s problems need to be approached humanly. This requires time, attention, and empathy from doctors. In the rigid framework set by public systems, this is difficult to achieve.

5. The Public System Limits Our Responsibility for Our Own Health

When consumers do not provide medical services for themselves through their own expenses, it is more difficult for them to understand their own needs. I am not arguing that the public system automatically leads to irrational behavior in terms of one’s own health but rather that depriving individuals of much of their decision-making power in this area can result in undesirable consequences.

If society is convinced that the public system gives it the right to healthcare, its attention and vigilance regarding possible solutions offered on the market may be weakened. Thus, the social activity in taking care of one’s own health through proper nutrition, a healthier lifestyle, systematic use of services offered by private institutions in the field of periodic preventive examinations, or the monitoring of the market in search of solutions protecting against the consequences of serious diseases or accidents decreases.

Analogously, spending one’s own money on food makes the consumer pay attention to the quality and price, as well as show more interest in each product in a broader context. On the other hand, when the funds are beyond one’s direct control, the consumer may adopt a more passive attitude.

6. The Public System Leads to Further Interventions in Other Areas of the Economy

Organizing one’s own private healthcare system requires individuals to have adequate funds at their disposal. The more resources that people spend on purchasing medical services, the more satisfactorily their needs will be met. It does not matter whether one must buy private health insurance, buy a medical subscription, or pay for the services directly out of one’s own pocket. Thus, any intervention that directly or indirectly limits this range of possibilities may be met with less public support.

This will also make individuals more aware of their own needs and interests. In addition, such an open environment will increase the opportunity for a better understanding of market processes—in particular, the effects of interventionism in healthcare and the market economy in general.

7. The Public System Limits Aid to the Most Deprived

In contrast to public solutions, there are many charitable institutions on the market that use voluntarily raised funds to help those in need. They do not operate based on rigid rules; thus, their activities are not burdened with additional costs or bureaucracy. Such institutions do not have a centralized structure managing them from above, which allows them to develop quickly where it is most needed. An additional benefit is greater social awareness and the development of appropriate ethical attitudes.

In addition, it is worth noting another important fact: private charitable institutions do not create the illusion of helping. They clearly communicate that for their actions to succeed, they need the generosity of specific people willing to give part of their property to others. By contrast, no politicians who promise additional spending on healthcare to help those in need can show their sensitivity and ethical attitude in the same way because they do not devote their own resources to that purpose.

Conclusion

There are certainly more reasons to abandon public systems. Contrary to popular belief, public systems are not special or specific, and they can be implemented without much concern for our health. It is important for the public not only to be aware of the disadvantages of public systems but also to see the advantages of market-based solutions.

 

Łukasz Jasiński is economist at the Mises Institute of Economic Education (Poland, Wroclaw) and assistant professor at the Faculty of Economics of Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin (Poland).

 

Łukasz Jasiński |  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 Seven Reasons to Abandon the Public Health System appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Trump can’t win! He can’t win!” “Trump will drag all Republicans down to defeat!” “Trump is the only Republican who can’t beat Biden!” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We’ve had this pablum flung at us for years. And it is categorically FALSE.

See the tweet below from Tom Bevan. Trump is running ahead in 2016 and 2020 (the previous two Presidential elections that he WON).

It is past time for DeSantis, Haley, Christie, etc., to drop out and get behind Trump. They have no rationale … NONE … for running for the GOP nomination.

 

of 3 historical snapshots:

8 years ago today: Clinton +4.4 pic.twitter.com/pdo0NCjjnG

— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) November 22, 2023

The post There Is No Longer Any Rationale For The GOP Presidential Primary appeared first on Granite Grok.

It took 34-year-old Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez just a little over four years to go from a Bartender to a verified Millionaire.

Cortez, or Sandy as she went by in her days at Boston University, graduated in 2011 and had significant debt from four years of overpriced study on Boylston Street.

She started a career as a Mixologist until she was elected to Congress in 2018 to represent the good folks of the Bronx and Queens. She lives in a luxury apartment in D.C., drives a Tesla, travels extensively, and makes $174,000 yearly as a Congresswoman. On her current trajectory, it is estimated Miss Cortez will break the Million Dollar ceiling by age 38. She attributes her growing savings account balance to good budgeting. Not bad for a self-proclaimed Socialist. I think it may be more a case of campaign funds finding their way into her personal accounts. I have no proof, but she has been investigated more than once for misappropriation of campaign donations. That is some pretty good financial manipulation for an Arts and Science Major. Like most internal investigations by Congress, they very rarely punish their own.

Cortez is not unique, but she may be the most high-profile case. And not just the Members of Congress who profit, but their friends and family who tag along and get onto the staff payroll. The salary of the Member is capped, but there is no such cap on staff salaries. It is well documented that Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have their children on their Congressional or campaign staffs and are making six-figure salaries greater than their Congressional Moms. Again, these are not rare but widespread situations, and one of the reasons these politicians opt to stay in office for life. Their office is a retirement fund for select family members.

Nancy Pelosi has also tapped into another means of back-door income for her and her husband. Nancy and Paul Pelosi are worth more than $200 Million, most of which can be attributed to excellent luck in the stock market. Pelosi has been accused of using information regarding bills working their way through Congress to make stock trading decisions. An example was their making millions buying Tesla stock just before a bill mandating future government vehicles would need to be electric. They made a similar killing on a Microsoft stock purchase. Nancy Pelosi’s good fortune in the Market has prompted many proposed bills forbidding Members of Congress from buying individual stocks while holding office. Of course, with so many members of the House and Senate profiting from these activities, these bills will never get to any President’s desk for signature.

These people are not in office for the good of the country. They do not have an altruistic bone in their bodies. It may be wrong to paint with such a broad brush, but it is safe to say that any exception will be part of a tiny minority. It is no wonder that after a very short time in office, these folks lose any perception of the plight of the average American. These folks live by different rules and are not just members of Congress but a very exclusive club of personal entrepreneurs.

 

The post Ocasio-Cortez Goes from Mixologist to Congressional Millionaire in Less than Five Years appeared first on Granite Grok.

They’re flying so thick and fast it is amazing.

Take heart – there will be both a Wednesday and Friday Edition.  Last week’s Friday Edition.

Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:

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

Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.

 

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

 

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

 

First, all the Thanksgiving memes that came in way too late to put into the pre-holiday post (or Friday for that matter):

 

 

Same applies to all domesticated animals.  Including the sheeple.

 

 

It would not surprise me if, someday scarily soon, having a Thanksgiving meal, or an actual Christmas party (or other traditional religious event) will be considered an actual crime.

 

 

 

I remember one year I was invited to the house of some (liberal) Jewish friends of my mother’s, she being down in Florida – snowbird – so she couldn’t attend.  It was… was… vegan because one of their sons was a vegan.  And he was “Dennis Kucinich this…”.  And that.  And the other.  The entire conversation was one long bash on anything to the Right of Stalin.  Ugh.  And because they were close and dear friends of my mother’s I couldn’t let the claws out… at least not too much.  I did slip a few shivs in the conversation here and there, however.

 

 

 

 

 

I loathe bean casserole, so no.  And I’m the only one who likes cranberry sauce at my house… but yes, one MUST go.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is this different than Nazi Germany?

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

Remember what they wanted to do to the unJabbed:

 

 

 

I hope so.  I pray so.  But… they’re not going to go down without a massive fight.

 

 

No matter the Leftist cause, they’re counting on the tolerance and desire by normal people to not get violent.  They keep doing this, that tolerance and desire will fade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 mg of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose.  Let’s assume 3 mg to be conservative.  300 pounds is 136077711 mg.  Divide by 3.  45359237.  Let me reword: 45.3+ million dead people.  From one sector of the border.

U.S. officials find ‘sophisticated’ smuggling tunnel on Mexican border | Reuters

Laid rails?  That’s not for foot traffic.  What else came in through that thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five years ago I would have laughed at that.  Now, with a few lingering doubts around the edges, I’m pretty much convinced of that.

 

 

 

And, thanks to the enemedia being nothing more than propagandists for the Left, we had “Insurrection” for breakfast, lunch, and dinner… and the sheeple ate it up.

 

 

I will agree to reparations with the following conditions:

1. Removal to the African country that best matches their DNA profile.  After all, without slavery, that’s where they’d be now.
2. Payment in cash, to be handed to them on their arrival in said African country.
3. Immediate stripping of their American citizenship.
4. MHO as an option: Notify the locals that their cash-loaded long-lost kindred have arrived home from America so a suitable reception can be arranged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let’s arrange for them to have a visit.  Rooftop welcoming party.

 

 

It does make me wonder.  Was the Captain in massive debt?  What happened to his family after?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Pick of the post:

 

 

Argentina did it.  That we don’t is a choice – a choice made by people who want to game the vote.

 

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

 

Palate Cleansers:

 

—

—

 

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

 

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

Please do consider buying me a coffee.

Buy Me a Coffee

 

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

 

The post MONDAY MEMES appeared first on Granite Grok.

Three Middle-Eastern students visiting a family member of one of the three in Burlington, Vermont, were shot over the weekend. “The students, all age 20, were identified by their former school as Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdel Hamid, and Tahseen Ahliamed.”

They are each attending American Universities, including Haverford College in Pennsylvania ($70+K), Brown University ($65K+), and Trinity College ($21K+).

 

Preliminary investigation determined all three young men were visiting the home of one victim’s relatives in Burlington for the Thanksgiving holiday, police said. The three Palestinian men were walking on North Prospect Street when they were confronted by a white man on foot with a handgun, police said.

Burlington Police said the man, without speaking, discharged at least four rounds from a pistol and he is believed to have fled on foot. All three victims were struck, two in their torsos – reportedly in the chest and back. The third man was hit in the lower extremity – believed to be his buttocks

 

 

Because they are regarded as “Palestinian” students, everyone from Joe Biden to CAIR to foreign ambassadors is getting in on the right to be outraged. – but not at Burlington, Vermont. If the marketing is accurate, the Green Mountain State’s #Woke Mecca is the last place we’d expect to see this sort of #HateCrime. Happy, accepting, diversity-loving folk don’t shoot students on break from pricey elite American universities, especially if they are young military-aged men.

That’s just unheard of, and it was nowhere in the tri-fold brochure. Shootings are to be limited to drunken disputes between as yet un-relocated red-necks or sanctuaried “migrants” engaged in sex trafficking or drug trade operations.

 

Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, posted on X about the incident, also naming the students and identifying them as “three young Palestinian men,” according to both CNN and Fox News.

He said the students were headed to a family dinner in Burlington when shot about 6:25 p.m. Saturday.

“Their crime? Wearing the Palestinian keffiyeh. They are critically injured,” Zomlot posted. Keffiyeh is an Arab kerchief or scarf worn as a headdress.

“The hate crimes against Palestinians must stop. Palestinians everywhere need protection,” Zomlot wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

 

Not to be contrarian, but even the Israel-hating biased media can’t find enough hate crimes against Palestinians to scratch the surface of the number of ethnic or religious attacks against Jews even before October 7th, when militants harbored by “Palestinians” committed hate crimes against Jews in Israel.

What was their crime? Objecting to Hamas militants hiding behind “Palestinians.”

I’m sure the numerous agencies rallied to investigate the violence in Burlington will find the ‘white male suspect,’ who will likely be presumed to be a Trump supporter, though the odds of that in Burlington seem thin.

We shall see, but while we wait, Burlington should be ashamed of itself.

[Update – CNN]

The man suspected of shooting three Palestinian college students in Burlington, Vermont, pleaded not guilty Monday to three charges of attempted murder in the second degree.

Jason J. Eaton, 48, was arrested Sunday afternoon near the scene of the attack, about a day after he allegedly shot the trio of 20-year-old victims, the Burlington Police Department said. At Monday’s arraignment hearing, the judge ordered Eaton – who appeared virtually wearing an orange jumpsuit – to be held without bond. …

Authorities said Eaton lives in an apartment building in front of the shooting scene and a search of his home uncovered evidence that gave investigators “probable cause to believe that Mr. Eaton perpetrated the shooting.”

During the search of the suspect’s home, authorities recovered a .380 semi-automatic Ruger pistol, a law enforcement source said. The weapon was taken to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ballistics lab, where experts are firing a comparison bullet to examine it against the bullets recovered from the victims and shell casings recovered at the scene.

 

 

HT | Vermont Daily Chronicle

The post Someone in #Woke Burlington Shot Three “Palestinians” Over the Weekend [Updated] appeared first on Granite Grok.

I already FOUGHT this battle – NOW I may have to do it again? Crikey! After founding and running GraniteGrok for 17 and a half years, hardly a month has gone by since I announced my [semi-] retirement, yet I find myself at the keyboard again over this nonsense. ”

During that announcement, I said that my attention had to turn to advocating for the Grandson in the school system due to his diagnosis and also having to deal with the Granddaughter’s severe issues, dealing with her medical folks, the Gilford School District that has to deal with her Special Needs education, and DCYF that placed her with us (first as “Fictive Kinship Caregivers” and now full-fledged “Skilled Care Foster Parents”).

While I had said that I’d be writing from time to time, my priorities had to be ‘family.’ I also said that I had a few unfinished projects to follow up on to square all the open circles, so I’d still be writing from time to time. Unfortunately, I am faced with the same battle that I already won but at a higher, more difficult level, and no, I didn’t see it coming.

Regular ‘Grok readers are familiar with my Gilford School Board (GSD) skirmishes (and a few others) over Policy JBAB; which enforced Government speech upon all who were on school grounds. “You WILL use any students’ “preferred transgender pronouns.” Tacked onto that was THEIR shot across the bow to Parents that the GSD staff WILL lie to you about the transgender status of YOUR child in THEIR school (ostensibly as they don’t trust Parents to love and care for their children as much as the GSD staff does. After almost three years of being a relentless Pain In Their Collective Asses (including a long legal battle), I won.

Imagine my surprise, late last night while surfing, to find a couple of articles that said that the Obama retreads embedded in the Biden Administration have decided that because they control the Gold that they give out to the various States, they can now demand fealty to THEIR mandated Government Speech demands. A State’s Foster parents will use Transgender preferred pronouns for any Trans Foster Children in their care. And it goes further. ALL Foster Parents MUST be “Transgender Affirmative.”

In this case, in the State of New Hampshire, that would be me! I’m betting you already know what *I* thought of that, right?

• First, several lines from The Godfather and John Wick movies that perfectly outlined my ire (and explain why you are seeing my byline so soon after “retirement”) Me: [Godfather – Michael Corleone] “Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In!”
• [John Wick] “You Wanted Me Back… I’m Back!  “I’m Thinkin’ I’m Back!”
• And from Watson, the head of the infamous head of the NYC Intercontinental Hotel in the John Wick trio of movies (I haven’t seen #4 yet): “What did you think? You stabbed the Devil in the back and forced him back into the life that he just left.”

For those not in the know, Keanu Reeves plays John Wick, the world’s best assassin who fell in love with a lady, removed himself from that world, and was forced back into that life again. That’s what happens when you kill a man’s dog and steal his car, both post-mortem presents from his now-deceased wife.  E.g., not a guy to screw around with.

While I make no claim to be a John Wick (I’m just an ordinary schlub from Central NH and not a make-believe character in a wildly successful film series), I can understand the ornery and absolutely dedicated nature of the character in his devotion to “correcting” people that need correcting.

I also failed to heed the advice I’ve given to others. Do not write something to someone when it’s a bit too late to be emailing ANYTHING to ANYONE due to writing mistakes that can pop up. That said, I was rather upset.  I was going to have to fight this same fight all over again with a different set of people.

And I ignored myself about writing that email.

I sent it to three NH DHHS employees (two work directly for DCYF) as a shot across their bow (see image above).

Unfortunately, they are decent people, but, once again, we are REQUIRED by our NH Constitution’s Article 8 to hold our public “Magistrates and Officers” accountable. So here’s what I sent, but with some editing to clean up some atrocious grammar mistakes.

I have also added more text from the linked-to articles along with more thoughts (thinking that I’m a bit more coherent right now – but that’s always open to debate).

 

I think not.

Good evening,

This comes at a propitious time as I have finally done all of the long preliminary work of getting my Granddaughter settled, working hard with the Gilford School Board, advocating for all of her cognitive and emotional testing (still working on getting the needed Dartmouth-Hitchcock reference), and doing all the DCYF/CWEP classes to earn the General, Skilled Care, and Emergency Foster Parent certifications (but still waiting for the Crisis class to be offered to complete the circle).  Now I have the time, given all the time spent these past four months on the more important items just listed, to return to finishing up my past DCYF-related Right To Know demands, send off a whole raft of new ones (because a few DCYF workers have created more problems and not caring that they created them for folks like me).

Add to them, what I just read tonight that will affect me personally as well as other Foster Parents across NH:

• Lack of ‘Affirmation’ Is Child Abuse: New Biden Rule Applies Transgender Standard to Foster Care

I dryly note that the actual URL for the above title gives away the Administration’s game: new-biden-rule-reveals-transgender-movements-endgame-no-dissenting-parents-allowed. A snippet from it’s opening paragraphs says it all (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Transgender orthodoxy may soon become a litmus test for parenthood, according to the logic of a new policy working its way through the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden.

A new rule in HHS’ Administration for Children and Families would apply the idea that any lack of “affirmation” constitutes a form of child abuse to foster care placements. Once that idea takes root in foster care, child protective services agencies might start applying it more broadly.

The rule would reinterpret the Social Security Act, which requires agencies to ensure that each child in foster care receives “safe and proper” care. The rule would lay out steps agencies must take to meet that requirement for “LGBTQI+ children,” defined as kids who “identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, as well as children who are non-binary, or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.”

Before agencies place a child with a foster parent, known as a “provider,” that person must “establish an environment free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status;” receive training “to be prepared with the appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child related to the child’s self-identified sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression;” and must be able to “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”

In short, using “discrimination” is once again being used to supercede  Constitutionally protected Rights of Free Speech, the prohibition to Government not to interfere with one’s Religious beliefs, nor the Right to Association (or the converse: the Right to NOT Associate with those you may not wish to). Go read the whole article.

• Non-Affirmation of Child’s “LGBTQI+” Identity Is Abuse Under Proposed Foster Care Rule

…Providers are “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.”

Sorry, we are not devotees to either the CRT bastard child called “Childism” nor the Social Justice variant that “children run a family” (which is being demanded here) – that’s extremely poor parenting along with the other stupid idea that parents that are supposed to be their child’s “friend” instead of doing the hard work of, you know, doing actual parenting. Nor will I be forced to learn the now THOUSANDS of preferred pronouns, neo-pronouns and all of the craziness of made up words simply to be “affirming” and this sector has literally gone off the rails (search here on GraniteGrok for “stack of stuff” to see any number of stories I’ve listed containing material on this) and have my Granddaughter taken from me because I don’t fit someone’s Leftist Ideology.

So when is the NH DHHS/DCYF in favor of implementing this new rule now proposed by the Biden Administration (comments end 11/27/2023)?

Ah yes, silly me – asking a simple question rather than using RTKs. It’s getting late so I figured I’d try the simple way first – like I did the Gilford School Board.  Funny that – they eschewed “easy” and went directly to “boy this is gonna hurt for a while”. However, I’m hoping for better this time.

I just spent two and a half years suing the Gilford School Board and forced them to modify their blatantly unconstitutional strictures encased in their Policy JBAB that violated Part 1 Articles 5 and 22 of the NH Constitution as well as those proscribed in the US Constitution’s First Amendment of

1. MANDATED usage of “preferred pronouns” by anyone on school grounds – a government-enforced speech violating the above
2. Also, their unconstitutional mandate forced their staff to lie to parents over the raising of their children by denying parents knowledge of their child’s transgender identity in the school (by various means).

Indoctrination much in demanding fealty to a government philosophy or suffer consequences? The School Board, the NH Association of Superintendents, and the NH School Board Association were forcing this Policy JBAB upon Districts state-wide (note: given the level of lawsuits here in NH and nationwide, the NHSBA pulled JBAB from their portfolio and told local Districts: “we may have given you this policy but good luck, suckers – you’re on your own!”. CYA at work – they understood what was coming as being the progenitor of that Policy).

That #2 was “interesting” as I used the Grandson’s Principal to make my point in calling out the School Board, IN FRONT OF THEIR Sr. Staff, for forcing their staff to lie, during the Public comment section of an open School Board Meeting by directly asking “What is the transgender status of my Grandson?”. And no, not an idle threat:

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2022/05/gunstock-commish-kiedaisch-my-bylaws-trump-state-statutes-gilford-school-board-brava   (go to 8:36 to cut to the chase about lying to me but the starting is also illustrative – and other courts are ruling against the use of preferred pronouns all over the nation – we are hitting “Peak Trans” (a la “Peak Oil”).

So How Did It Feel, Gilford School Board, to Watch Your Principal Lie to Me in Public Because of Your Policy JBAB?

 

“What Is The Transgender Status of My Legal Son?” Part 1

“What Is The Transgender Status of My Legal Son?” Part 2

“What Is The Transgender Status of My Legal Son?” Part 3

“What Is The Transgender Status of My Legal Son?” Part 4

Way to go, you SB morons for cratering that most fragile of attributes between those that govern versus citizens attribute even as:

Trust

E.g., Article 3 (emphasis mine):

When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

I posit that Free Speech and Religious Freedom are not counted amongst those “surrendered Rights”.

Most of the students AND parents sitting behind me that night were quite unaware of the Policy – afterwards, I had a ring of parents asking rather upset and pointed questions. It pays to read RSAs and Rules. The school board and staff, however, were not amused.

Point was made – the Policy was soon neutered as they couldn’t point (nor could their lawyer as they FINALLY asked her “What is the RSA or Ed RUle that supports this Policy?”). In this Dillon’s Rule State, the Legislature has never delegated such Powers to a mere subdivision of the State such as a School Board.

Nor to DCYF, as DCYF is a mere subdivision of the State as well.

This will be amusing to bring this issue to our GraniteGrok friends in the Legislature (see NH Constitution, Article 7) in on this “development”. So, I look forward to version 2.0 in this matter. Please also note I know a number of lawyers in such pro bono groups that take on such cases in this matter (especially the ADF, among others), that do.

Added for this post: ACLJ, Christian Legal Society, Liberty Counsel, Thomas More  Law Center, and Pacific Justice Institute. Since I’ve already done this fight before, I’m betting they’d take a listen from me.

Hmmm, somehow I think that my semi-retirement from GraniteGrok, announced just a month ago, is also now going to be revoked/voided…

The post Shot Across The Bow – Will NH DCYF Take a Knee To The Biden Administration? appeared first on Granite Grok.

As Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis get closer to each other in Republican Presidential Primary polls, demonstrating at least a sliver of separation from the rest of the dwindling pack, the battle for second place was bound to get a bit more personal. And it has!

Scrabbling for Trump’s crumbs is beginning to take on a bit of an edge, and it has dragged the specter of Hillary Clinton on to the political stage.

If ever the Right had successfully isolated a candidate – Alinsky style – it is Hillary, and a pro-DeSantis PAC called Fight Right has released a 30-second ad tying Nikki Haley to her. (Related: With Nikki Haley in Second Place in NH, I Feel Obligated to Remind Voters That She is a Constitutional Threat.)

 

The ad features brutal back-to-back clips in Haley’s own voice of the candidate praising Hillary Clinton and honoring her as the reason she got into politics. It concludes with a nail-on-chalkboard sound bite of Clinton’s infamous hyena-like cackle.

 

A cackle that would make for an excellent ringtone to let you know someone “special” is calling. A jilting ex, the IRS, whatever  you think works.

Here’s the ad.

 

New Pro-DeSantis super PAC drops million dollar ad buy highlighting Nikki Haley’s love of Hillary Clinton. pic.twitter.com/QSYMDac9R3

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 21, 2023

 

The post Pro DeSantis PAC Ties Nikki Haley to Hillary Clinton appeared first on Granite Grok.