The fun thing about the Democrat Dictionary, as infrequent as the installments are, is that no matter what the word is, it only ever means what Democrats think it means when they think it. The word Democracy is an excellent example of this.

They can’t shut up about it, Democracy. Defending it, saving it, honoring and protecting it, by which they mean their definition of it, not actual Democracy.

Democracy to Democrats is about people having the freedom to choose from a pool of candidates the Democrats allow, with the winner being whom they decide if the voters choose the wrong one (ask a Bernie supporter if I’m wrong).

So powerful is the Democrat commitment to their definition of Democracy that it also applies to the Republican Party, of which none of them are members and who would never be allowed to pick the Democrat’s nominee. While Democrats will go out of their way to pretend to be Republicans (for voting purposes) to pick the Democrat’s opponent, hoping that their candidate will win more easily.

They’ve gotten so keen on picking both nominees that in states where Democrats hold offices and power over elections, they have moved repeatedly to prevent the Republican party, a private organization, from deciding which of its candidates can be on its primary ballot – using government power over the voting process (printing of ballots) to enforce their will upon Republicans to limit whom they may choose for a candidate for President.

This is about as honest an example of what Democracy means to Democrats as you’ll ever find.

Democracy is not about Democracy; it is about using the government to get whatever it is Democrats want, whenever they want it.

And yes, we do live in a constitutional republic, which doesn’t work for Democrats, so they call it a Democracy. That and they love mobs, and there’s nothing quite like making 49.9% of the people do something because you’ve demonstrated – by fact of fiction – that you’ve convinced 50.1% to let the government do it to you.

The post Night Cap: Democrat Dictionary – ‘Democracy’ appeared first on Granite Grok.

Hawaii is Blue. If not for California, it would likely be the progressive poster child for failed policy. It is run by statists who appoint statist judges, but in an odd twist, the State’s Supreme Court has discovered federalism … as an excuse to deny an individual right.

In a February 7th ruling, the high court announced that it did not have to listen to the US Supreme Court or any precedent related to its interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Christopher Wilson was arrested seven years ago for carrying a handgun for protection while hiking. Being in Hawaii, he was charged with multiple firearms violations and introduced to the tedious and expensive court system. Hawaii does not allow you to carry outside “the home if you are able to get permission to carry at all. Seven years later the State’s highest court has ruled against Wilson.

“We reject Wilson’s constitutional challenges. Conventional interpretive modalities and [Hawaii’s] historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the [Hawaii] Constitution.”

Jacob Sullum, writing at Reason, observes (with reference to  District of Columbia v. Heller,  McDonald v. Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that,

The Hawaii Supreme Court thinks all of those cases were wrongly decided. In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the court sides with the Heller dissenters by embracing the view that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—unlike “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (protected by the First Amendment), “the right of the people” to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures” (protected by the Fourth Amendment), and the unspecified rights “retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment—does not refer to an individual right. Rather, the Hawaii Supreme Court says, the Second Amendment involves a “collective right” that is relevant only in the context of militia service.

It appears to me that Hawaii’s “historical” tradition is to selectively acknowledge rights as individual or collective based on partisan political interest. The very reason why we have a Federal Constitution, which Hawaii accepted as the highest law of the land when it joined the nation. And yes, we can have endless conversations about courts and constitutions and not following those words or these words or the vagaries of time and definitions, and it’s all legitimate grist for that mill. But at its simplest, you shouldn’t either see all the natural rights as an individual or none of them and make that case to the people so they can vote accordingly.

That’s not how any of it works because while there is some ground-level momentum toward collectivism in regard to rights like free speech, we still have some way to go to see the whole stable subdued by the creeping Marxists who love the word federalism if they can use it to deny people rights.

You can find a lot of inside baseball and background on State v. Wilson here if you like getting into the weeds.

The post Hawaii Discovers ‘Federalism’ – Refuses to Acknowledge Bruen in Decision Requiring License to Carry appeared first on Granite Grok.

Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.

This supposedly salvific solution to the world’s carbon problems is less a “study” and more of a globalist New World Order propaganda plug. The proposal is that school lunches “may be the key to changing our food systems worldwide.” How is this to be achieved? – by sourcing artificial meats manufactured profitably by the new would-be food purveyors from chemical-saturated, environmentally-destructive agricultural production of soy and other GMO plants, to thereby wean children from having a palate for meats.

As MSN.com proclaimed:

“Offering more plant-based protein such as vegan burgers and nuggets, and also beans and soy products like tofu could help to “shift social norms around meat consumption,” reads the report. ….The shift would help to reduce heat-trapping gases and pollution generated by factory farms which produce most of the meat on the planet. Livestock farming accounts for 8% of these gases, the report notes.”

The sins of factory farms are here employed to throw the cows out with the formaldehyde hoof-bath. Shifting farm critters back to rotational grazing would sequester more carbon than all the EV cars, solar panels, and soy-burgers combined. As Joel Salatin explains in The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer:

“If every farmer in America practiced this prehistoric system, in fewer than ten years we would sequester all the carbon that’s been emitted since the beginning of the industrial age. ….One of the most environmentally-enhancing things that you can do is to eat grass-finished beef. That sequesters more carbon than soybeans or corn or any other annual.” (p. 28).

The so-called “study,” created by a biased ally of the World Economic Forum, claims this beneficent shift in diet to vat-hatched meats would avoid compulsion by simply altering what kids desire:

“According to Mark Meldrum from Systemiq and co-author of the report, none of the recommended shifts are about banning the old ways.

“They are about supporting and lifting the new, to help them be as competitive and attractive as possible,” he says. “So we get to a place where we don’t need a ban, because everyone wants the new thing anyway.” ”

How un-scientific can a con-job get? Using public funds to process soy into fake-burger allocates profits to patent holders like Bill Gates, while soaking kids’ guts with microbiome-killing glyphosate. Soy farming depends not just on GMOs (and thus glyphosate) but upon synthetic fertilizers and massive amounts of fossil fuels. Allowing cows to roam grasslands is organic, and uses far less energy. And grass-fed meats are healthy for children.

Bellies of the Rich Swell Further on the Back of Hunger

The January 19, 2023 “study” carries the cutesy think-tank title “The Breakthrough Effect”:

“The three super-leverage points are: mandates for the sale of electric vehicles, mandates requiring “green ammonia” to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural fertilisers, and public procurement of plant-based proteins. These changes could trigger a cascade of tipping points, leading to cheaper batteries to help solar and wind scale-up in the electricity sector, cheaper hydrogen opening up decarbonisation for the shipping and steel industries, and reduced pressure for deforestation.”

“Systemiq” is a “partner” of the WEF, together with hundreds of bad corporate actors determined to profit from food at the expense of human and ecological health. Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and Cargill all boast their involvement.

The proposed “New World Food Order” is in plain-if-shameless sight: “Reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050 is possible if the right technologies are brought to commercial scale within the next decade.” These “right technologies” can’t compete without government compulsion. Never mind that the majority of the world’s food is provided by local peasant agriculture – more chemicals and magical (patented) technologies of the would-be corporate food-masters are proposed as the only way to save humanity.

The WEF’s Orwellian, earth-saving moniker is the “First Movers Coalition”: corporations offering to be the saviors from their own pollution:

“The First Movers Coalition’s unique approach assembles ambitious corporate purchasing pledges across the heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors responsible for a third of global emissions. For these sectors to decarbonize at the speed needed to keep the planet on a 1.5-degree pathway, they require low-carbon technologies that are not yet competitive with current carbon-intensive solutions but must reach commercial scale by 2030 to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050.”

A better plan would be to reduce “heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors” by sourcing food locally and regeneratively. A better plan would employ cows to rebuild soils, sequester carbon, avoid synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, disperse profits equitably to local producers, and feed children food that doesn’t cause cancer, obesity, diabetes, and endocrine disruption.

Instead, the proposal is to increase dependency on corporate food provision using government compulsion and citizen tax dollars. The name coined to summarize this Shwabian malarkey is “agritech”:

““Agritech” is a natural evolution of precision agriculture, realized through the automated analysis of data collected from the field via equipment sensors and other sources. An emerging set of smart technologies, coupled with new digital skills and enhanced data control, can help foster more forward-looking decision making and positively shape the future direction of the value chains connecting farmers to consumers. This new paradigm calls for a comprehensive evolution from traditional to digital systems, in order to reduce costs, increase efficient production, and inject greater environmental and social sustainability into agricultural activity.”

Ah, the utopian promises of those who don’t read their own Kool-aid recipes! Technomystical faith in Big Ag to “feed the world” is the folly that has created the agricultural and health quagmire in which humanity is embroiled: now the same failed systems are paraded as cure. This will surely compound corporate hegemony, food insecurity, soil erosion, water depletion, and declining human health – all in the name of “data control,” “digital skills,” “automated analysis,” and “social sustainability.”

This is labeled a “new paradigm,” but it is just old glyphosate in shiny new globalist vessels, “evolving” in a forward-profit-looking fraud that will negatively shape humanity’s future. This is the expected product of “the views of a wide range of experts from the World Economic Forum’s Expert Network and is curated in partnership with the Smart AgriFood Observatory.”

Readers are told that this corrupt path will save the planet, and that it has been fashioned by philanthropic stakeholders who only seek the public good for meat-loving youngsters:

““Cooperation in a fragmented world” was chosen as the theme of the gathering of the great and the good at Davos this year. ….EU policies should not simply be aimed at securing access, but also at minimising critical raw material needs. They must examine ways to decrease the use of all materials, improve resilience and minimise the negative environmental, health and social impacts associated with the extraction, use and end of life of these resources.”

What would most minimize critical raw material needs would be to nurture local regenerative agricultural production, not increase scale, corporate domination, and long-distance transport. Minimizing glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, and confinement feed operations would decrease toxic raw material use. Nothing would do that more than by restoring cows and other animals to rotational grazing. (And then there is the “end of life” of solar panels and EV cars….)

Janez Potocnik, partner at Systemiq, ironically observes:

“….too few policymakers take the time to examine the root causes of a problem and to address the drivers and pressures behind it. They fail too often to see how our current system does not incentivise sustainable resource use, but encourages quite the opposite.”

Ain’t that the truth! How about the world stops subsidizing destructive monocultures like soy and corn production; stops feeding children high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats; and stops calling such barbaric and demonstrably harmful practices enlightened and world-saving?

Instead, these miscreants advise children to gobble more chemicals at school lunch tables. This is the “key to changing our food systems worldwide” …for the worse.

The post Solution to the World’s Carbon Problems appeared first on Granite Grok.

State Senator Kevin Avard was a guest on Rock, Paper Hand Grenades, and the topic of the Diestch list raised its amusing little head. If you missed it, former state Senator Jeanne Dietsch had been compiling a list of New Hampshire residents labeled as anti-democracy extremists (with the help of your ‘neighbors’).

We were alerted to it and made a copy before our report inspired Dietsch to ditch the list, by which I mean make it private (it had been publicly accessible as a Google Doc). Be that as it may, the current list presents opportunities for ridicule and our amusement, but when it came up on the podcast, Sen. Avard suggested that it was akin to doxxing, and he imagines that non-public citizens on the list could do a class action lawsuit against Dietsch.

That would be interesting.

Here’s the clip.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v49rqax","div":"rumble_v49rqax"});

I’m not a lawyer and do not play one on the internet, but if you are on the list and not a public person and like talking to your lawyer, get their opinion. You might have a case.

The post Sen. Avard Says, Dietsch List is Doxxing, Citizens Could Sue appeared first on Granite Grok.