Recent public complaints by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) that New York costs too much for the working class (and should increase taxes on wealthier residents!) are rubbing salt in the wounds of her strident opposition to Amazon locating its headquarters in the city in 2019.

A pattern of urban sabotage by social justice Democrats is causing major U.S. cities to experience accelerating economic decline. Despite their efforts to blame white conservatives for this suicidal display, Americans see the true causes.

Chicago and Los Angeles have also chased profitable businesses from town while courting illegal denizens, driving up housing costs, and defunding police forces. Gov. Gavin Newsom faces stifling, nosebleed state deficits even as he tours the world touting the far-left policies that seeded California’s economic failure as a national recipe for social progress. Efforts to blame these gargantuan failures on Republicans fall on deaf ears. This is an economic activity of the social justice kind: Marxist deconstruction.

More Jobs Don’t Equal Less Investment

AOC has an economics degree from Boston University, but her public attacks against Amazon in 2019 suggest she needs further studies. She posted on X, formerly Twitter:

Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here. It’s possible to establish economic partnerships [with] real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.

AOC’s upside-down pseudo-economics charged that Amazon was somehow going to suck money out of government coffers, but those tax breaks were offsets against much larger revenue receipts. Amazon’s massive investments in New York would have contributed not only revenue to repair subways but also more taxpaying workers to ride to reliable jobs: Amazon’s 25–40,000 well-paid workers would have owed city and state taxes on their incomes even if they commuted from New Jersey.

Amazon’s proposal was an “economic partnership [with] real opportunities for working families.” AOC pushes rent controls, reckless illegal immigration, higher taxes on residents, and reduced police funding, then cries foul when the resulting economic destruction unfolds. She recently doubled down, claiming that wealthy taxpayers are not fleeing New York City (they are) and that higher taxes will benefit the middle class she has destroyed: “The people who are moving out of the city are not by and large the wealthiest people. They’re the working class. They can’t afford to live here anymore.”

Marxists Like AOC Are Deconstructing the Economy

AOC has not created economic opportunities for anyone but ideological grifters. New York City is in economic and social freefall. The emergency room patient is being moved to the ICU, and its killer remains at large. Those jobs for working-class people who can “no longer afford” New York were generously offered by Amazon, then forcefully jilted by AOC, who claimed that achievement as a victory on X:

Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world.

Instead, hundreds of thousands of undocumented, unemployed migrants have collected in New York City, exploited by Democrats who have no more plans to feed or provide for them than they do for the working-class families being displaced and economically decimated by foolish economic initiatives. This pattern of economic destruction reflects the Marxist ideological policy of deconstruction — tearing down the economy, schools, families, and everything else that is decent to implement the farcically imagined utopia that will guarantee that “everyone has everything” while doing (and owning) nothing.

America’s three largest cities are witnessing a massive exodus of businesses, investments, taxpayers, and tax receipts as a direct consequence of reckless policies of overt economic and social sabotage. The instigators of this economic destruction are unrepentant in their shameless disconnect from the working class they claim they are liberating.

How much worse can it get?

 

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

The post Night Cap: AOC’s Leftist Sabotage Is Coming Home to Roost appeared first on Granite Grok.

Personal injury lawyers specialize in providing legal representation to individuals who have suffered physical or psychological harm. This is due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another party.

They are also known as plaintiff attorneys. These cases typically fall under tort law, which covers civil wrongs and damages caused by one party to another.

In this article, we will discuss what kind of cases do personal injury lawyers handle. Keep reading.

Car Accidents

Car accidents are one of the most common types of personal injury cases. They can be caused by various factors, such as:

• reckless driving
• distracted driving
• defective vehicles

This personal injury lawyer helps individuals injured in car accidents seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Case diversity is very important for a lawyer to be successful.

Slip and Fall Accidents

Accidents involving slips and falls happen when someone trips, slips, or falls on someone else’s property because of potentially dangerous conditions. These accidents can result in serious injuries, such as broken bones, spinal cord injuries, or head trauma.

Personal injury lawyers can help victims of slip and fall accidents hold the property owner liable for their injuries. They are very helpful to get the maximum compensation for personal injury claims. This is because insurance companies can be very devious with their claims.

Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice refers to the negligence of healthcare providers that harms a patient. This can include:

• misdiagnosis
• surgical errors
• medication errors
• birth injuries

Personal injury lawyers can help victims of medical malpractice seek compensation for their injuries. They also hold healthcare providers accountable for their negligence. This is where lawyer case specialties can be beneficial.

Product Liability

If a defective product causes harm to an individual, they may have grounds for a personal injury claim. Product liability cases cover defects in a product’s design, manufacturing, or marketing that injure the consumer. Personal injury lawyers can help victims of defective products hold manufacturers and distributors accountable for their negligence.

Workplace Accidents

Employees who suffer injuries on the job may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. However, if the employer’s negligence caused the accident, a personal injury lawyer can help the employee seek additional compensation for their injuries. This may include damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.

Know What Kind of Cases Do Personal Injury Lawyers Handle Today

Personal injury lawyers handle a wide range of cases, from car accidents to workplace injuries. They play a crucial role in helping individuals seek justice and compensation for their injuries.

Knowing what kind of cases do personal injury lawyers handle is essential. If you have been injured due to someone else’s negligence, consulting with a personal injury lawyer is important.

They can guide you through the legal process and fight for your rights. With their knowledge, expertise, and support, you can increase your chances of receiving fair compensation for your injuries and begin to move on from this difficult experience.

Was this article useful? Check out the rest of the updates from our blog!

The post Understanding What Kind of Cases Do Personal Injury Lawyers Handle appeared first on Granite Grok.

I heard a rather shocking pronouncement from Town Council Chairman John Farrell at the 12/18/23 public meeting. “Don’t believe everything you read in the paper,” Farrell says, “because it’s all one-sided.”

I did not attend this session of the council, as my children are Elementary aged, and we enjoyed the showing of the Polar Express with the North School Community. Rather, I listened at home, and boy am I glad I did, as I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that statement.

It is ironic that he chose the term “one-sided” as that is actually the most appropriate way to describe the manipulated information flow that proceeds from the Town Council and many of our malfeasant elected and appointed officials.

“One-sided” would be citizens emailing the Town Manager and Town Council and not getting a response from their elected officials to the majority of inquiries and communications they send off.

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

“One-sided” would be a Town Manager and Town Council that consistently have failed to produce information and documents upon simple citizen request, forcing citizen’s to file right-to-know requests to compel the town to release information that should be readily available to the public, but apparently have to be redacted to cover Town wrongdoing.

“One sided” would be giving a citizen 3-5 minutes at public comment to speak, and then Councilman Jim Butler spending the next 20 minutes personally attacking that citizen for asking too many questions. Ironically enough, “one-sided” is exactly what Councilman Butler promised to be when he said he would like to control the narrative during a July Public Meeting of the Town Council.

“One-sided” would be Town Manager Malaguti’s baseless sexual harassment complaint against former Town Councilwoman Deb Paul, which a NH judge described as “frivolous” no less than a half dozen times in an opinion stretching over 15 pages.

“One-sided” would be Council Chairman John Farrell unlawfully refusing to produce that document for former Councilwoman Paul, thereby costing the taxpayer thousands of dollars in an attempt to cover up the Town Manager’s malfeasance.

“One-sided” would be the Town Manager attempting to use an internal investigation to dissuade the State of New Hampshire from finding that Town Hall employees engaged in illegal notary activities.

“One-sided” would be the voters rejecting an appointed treasurer year after year and having all 5 of our current Council Members reject the will of the people by advancing it to a warrant anyway because members of Town Hall have (highly questionable) concerns.

Let’s expand beyond the council, shall we?

“One-sided” is a Planning Board that does not want public comment unless the law prescribes it, Supervisors of the Checklist who don’t respond to citizens, and a Treasurer who cannot articulate why they should no longer be elected because “elections are mean.”

This March, vote for new Councilors so that we can start believing what we hear from the Town Council again.

 

The post Don’t Believe Everything You Hear From Town Council appeared first on Granite Grok.

This article is for persons who are discouraged by the fact that new burdens are added every day to the list of which issues should occupy one’s time and energy. Perhaps you should write down what it is that you hope to accomplish and note how much effort you’ve been putting into this or that.

Was it a good investment? Should you shift gears?

Of course, this article is also for me. I’m trying to decide what to focus on henceforth. Looking back over the last eight years, what would I have done differently?

False Flags

A lot of my time in the past eight years went into writing books about three false flags. At the time of Jahar Tsarnaev’s trial in 2015, I started to write about the Boston Marathon bombing case. Gahd, it was so easy to see from court transcripts that lawyers and judges were having a ball, making a fool of the citizenry. And The Boston Globe needs to be awarded a gold medal for keeping a straight face.

Then, in 2017, having attended the relevant Inquest hearings of the “Sydney siege,” I put together a book that proved (in my opinion) that the 2014 hostage-taking episode in the Lindt Cafe was fraudulent, a psy-op to train Aussies to fear Muslims and hate “terrorists.” Like the Boston case, it was pure, pure Hollywood. I’d hate to think how many cops had to play a stand-down role. (Don’t they get sick of this? Do the wife and kids know Daddy is faking his heroism?)

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

More recently, in 2021, a friend challenged me to prove that the Sandy Hook massacre actually did occur, as I claimed it did. Thanks to the friend, I was forced to look at the several court cases involved. Oh no! Not another legal hoax! Yes, it was a hoax, and yes, Alex Jones is playing a part in it even now, with the nonsense about his having to pay millions to families for “defamation.”

So, should I have turned off the tap in 2015 and not wasted a lot of water to prove that false flags are false flags? Yes, I now believe that I mis-invested my time. Especially as my work has never been taken up. As far as I know, no one is promulgating my books. The majority of people are still happy to believe that the Marathon bombing, the Sydney siege, and the “killing” of 20 children at Sandy Hook School were done by, respectively, Tsarnaev, Monis, and Adam Lanza. (Those last two guys have absolutely no verifiable bio.)

I’m not sorry for contributing what I could to the outing of psyops, but eight years down the drain means eight years in which I could — maybe — have done something different to help society. (I’m Catholic, ever fueled by guilt, thank God!)

Granted, the false-flag work did provide me with training and confidence-building, for the tackling of other issues. I had no trouble jumping right into the psy-op known as vaccinating for Covid and the “Hollywood” production known as Jan 6. No trouble at all; the media’s perfidy is as plain as the nose on your face. As is Congress’s perfidy, likewise.

Oh My, Both the Media and Government Are Against You

Well, then, here is the real story that can be derived from my eight years of running around as a truther and perhaps your eight years, or more, of doing similar. It is that we live in a country (for me, that means both the US and Australia) where the institutions that should do the heavy lifting for truth — the media and the government — are not doing that. I can put it this way: Rupert Murdoch sucks.

Okay. Rupert Murdoch is the media. But who is the government? Why, it, too, must be Rupert Murdoch!

How the hell did it take me eight years to notice this? Maybe the fact that Rupe’s two jobs have two separate labels deceived me. After all, our brain is wired to grant reality to any entity that has a name — media, government, hosiery, whatever.

This is normally a good thing — naming is essential for physical objects. If you learn that there is a species of mammal, the kangaroo, whose baby, known as a joey, rides around in its mother’s pouch, you now have an education about that, even if you have never seen a joey in real life.

It works for abstractions, too. You can get a taste of such abstract things as rivalry, treason, peace, frugality, or “mafia-like arrangements” as soon as their label is invoked.

The Changeover

My generation grew up learning about government — not the Rupey kind. Thus, we became aware of such realities as following one’s oath of office and respecting the Constitution’s balance of power. Wait. Those things are abstractions. But are they real? The abstractness of a concept is not the measure of its reality. What I’m trying to get at here is that our brain, upon hearing a term, calls up the image that we have been taught.

Then you need to ask the question: Is the label misleading? Should we now be lulled into thinking that officials obey their oath of office just because the abstraction is present in our cerebrum? I’m fairly sure that, decades ago, it was standard practice — members of government felt it necessary to abide by their oath. Somehow, that practice is not compelling anymore.

Today, members of the government do what they do by absorbing the prevailing office culture. In actuality, they are obeying a new boss — whom I identify roughly as “Rupert Murdoch.” Mr. Murdoch, or a group of men like him, may have been able to organize this whole changeover in subtle ways. (Ask Diane DeVere about Tavistock.) They have earnestly studied human nature and know how office-culture works. They also are dab hands at bribery and intimidation.

If an old-fashioned American comes along now and yells, “We’ve got to follow our oath of office,” he or she may look a bit stupid. People will say, “Come on, man, get with the times. Those constitutional things don’t work anymore.”

In fact, someone started a group called Oath Keepers. It’s for soldiers who are proud that they swore an oath — as was required at their initiation ceremony — to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic [read: Rupe]. Oh, and swore not to commit war crimes. The Oath Keepers also invited police persons to join, although a cop’s oath is more geared to serving the people.

Then, lo and behold, some Oath Keepers showed up at the January 6, 2021 “event” at Capitol Hill and were arrested for sedition and other dubious crimes related to protesting dishonest government. Immediately, they were trashed by the mainstream media. You have to really concentrate to stop yourself from believing that the Oath Keepers are something other than stupid, rough, selfish, and — wait for it — disloyal.

The leader is presently serving a long sentence for “Jan 6.” Hey, doesn’t that prove that a court had good evidence and persuaded a jury of it? Oh dear, there goes that label-matching process of your cerebrum again. “Court” and “evidence” make you think something nice happened—that warm, fuzzy feeling.

No. Court and evidence are now part of Rupe’s toolkit for achieving what he wants. They are not what you think. Ask me about it! — Jahar, Monis, Adam. Everything Rupe wants, he can get from a court, including the highest courts. I hope I’m not being too disrespectful when I say that I look upon the US Supreme justices as the Praetorian Guard of the globalists.

If you want to know what I think of Australia’s High Court, please see my chapter on the Argyle case (in my 2023 book “Society Is the Authority”) for the secret token that allows all judges to participate in child trafficking.

My Christmas Gift to Myself

That settles it. I’m poised to abandon the false-flag territory for the new concept: “Rupe is not just the mainstream media; he is also the US government, at least for the moment.”

Ah, I’m writing this on December 24, 2023, so I see that I’ve given myself a Christmas gift — a new theme to work with. Perhaps I’ll gift-wrap it and put it under the tree and surprise myself in the morning.

Sadness: I see that the man on Loudon Rd who sells Xmas trees near Everett Arena still has a huge number of them left. I imagine it’s because people are TOO SAD to celebrate.

Note to fellow GraniteGrokkers: Disquis does not allow me to comment. So I do hope for your comments, but won’t be able to reply. My email is MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com. Danke.

Mary Maxwell is a candidate in the 2024 FITN primary.

Reminder: The views and opinions expressed in Op-Eds are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of GraniteGrok.com or its authors.

The post You Can Deal with Only So Many Issues. Which Ones Are Best? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Here are a few inconvenient truths. Election fraud is real. Mail-in and absentee ballot fraud is real (and an epidemic). Anyone can use mail-in ballots to commit election fraud, but Democrats keep getting caught doing it … to each other.

 

The suspect was identified as 32-year-old Abdul Rahman of Queens’ Floral Park neighborhood, who could face up to seven years in prison if found guilty of 140 charges against him. Rahman is described by outlet the Gothamist as a man “active in Democrat and South Asian circles.”

 

If they are doing it to each other, we know they are doing it to Republicans. Now! The accused – Abdul Rahman, isn’t sporting your typical South Asian name, but that’s the name he gave them. (Related: Election Fraud Investigations Against Democrats Underway in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.)

 

In all, Rahman is facing: 20 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree; 20 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree; 20 counts of falsifying business records in the second degree; 20 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree; 20 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree; 20 counts of illegal voting; and 20 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

 

Mail-in ballot fraud was always real, prolific, and persistent. Everyone knows this, always has, and always will – yet the left continues to cling bitterly to it, and you know why. It is easier to steal elections, and it can be prosecuted at the discretion of AGs and DAs whom George Soros has simultaneously tried to buy up.

But hey, 2020 was legit, and 2024 will be too. No worries.

 

The post Clean Elections Update: Democrat Faces 140 Charges for Mail-In Ballot Fraud … in a Democrat Primary Race appeared first on Granite Grok.

Looking at some of the decisions and practices in public schools, I’m not surprised by the mental health challenges some students are now experiencing. There have been calls for action because of the mental health problems many of our post-COVID students face.

But can some of this be avoided?

We already know that schools are ramping up their efforts to assess and treat the mental health of students. This has already created a number of problems when it comes to sharing personal mental health information on students. We also know that the school shutdowns and forced masks in schools added to the decline in their mental health.

Looking at some of the books that are offered to children in school can certainly add to a child’s depression or feelings of anxiety. Books with dark topics that revisit a traumatic experience can further exacerbate negative feelings in a child.

But what if their school is purposely creating these mental health problems for the children while they attend school? It might surprise parents that this kind of practice has already begun in some schools.

Education researcher Natalie Cline reported on her Facebook account:

Trauma-informed teaching means inflicting or triggering psycholigical trauma on the whole class so school counselors, social workers, and psychologists can then be brought in to deepen the trauma with their “trauma-informed” and trauma-inducing treatment interventions. This is how schools normalize and elevate non-teachers taking center-stage in classrooms and is how schools are creating a universalized student-to-patient pipeline for mental health services. It’s a business model much like when Planned Parenthood is brought in to teach students strategies for reducing sexual risk (as opposed to AVOIDING risky behaviors altogether) and then telling students that when something goes wrong Planned Parenthood will be there to “help” them with all their sexual and reproductive needs.

 

 

Cline goes on to report (edited for length)

Check out how Utah school counselors are being encouraged to coordinate with teachers to intentionally read disturbing books in class, like The House on Mango Street, so that counselors can then be invited in to do group therapy with the traumatized class.

A concerned parent received this email from a teacher in DSD and understandably does NOT want her child participating in this book discussion. The House on Mango Street is a disgusting book that no kid should be required to read and discuss.

Here is what the email says:
“In our English 10 class, we are nearly finished reading a coming-of-age novel, The House on Mango Street. I want to make you aware that our class readings and discussions on Monday and Tuesday (May 8th and May 9th) will include very sensitive topics, including rape, sexual assault, trauma, depression, and suicide ideation. The counselors will join us and will make sure students have access to resources that can help them in these or other situations they may encounter. Please have discussions with your teen as you see appropriate.
===============================================================

The people who want to play “psychology” in school are not educated or qualified to treat a child’s mental health trauma. This is pseudo-psychology, where children are being used as experiments in this dangerous game.

This is why parents are encouraged to seek mental health assessments and treatment outside the school system. Parents should use extreme caution when allowing their child to speak to a school counselor or school psychologist. Parents have also begun opting their children out of SEL /Social and Emotional Learning in school. This is another way to bring psychological treatment to people who do not have the proper education or clinical training in to the classroom.

There are examples of dangerous situations in public schools where they crossed the line into dangerous psychological practices. Creating trauma in order to treat trauma should tell you just how dangerous this can be.

 

The post Public Schools are Purposely Causing Trauma For Students appeared first on Granite Grok.

Twenty days ago, we reported on a muck-up in Maine (that’s muck, with an ‘m’). Team Christie, or so the State claimed, had failed to provide 2000 in-state signatures (of certified registered voters) as required by law. The campaign appealed, and the State Supreme Court has ruled.

He’s not Republican enough.

That’s a joke (or is it?). The State’s highest court did not find adequate proof that the campaign had provided the required signatures, so Christie is off the ballot.

 

The decision was made after Christie’s campaign brought an appeal in response to a previous decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows that the anti-Trump politician did not gather the necessary 2,000 certified signatures, according to Trending Politics. The Christie campaign turned in just 844 signatures, Bellows said.

“We appreciate that the court upheld the integrity of Maine’s well-established ballot access requirements. Every candidate, including presidential candidates, must follow the law to qualify for the ballot. We are glad that the court recognized that Maine law is workable and fair to all,” she said.

 

Maine offers twenty delegates to the GOP convention – two fewer than New Hampshire’s twenty-two (if my quick search results are accurate), so it is not a meaningless loss. Maine’s primary is on Super Tuesday, and if Christie is still in it, he could use all the help he can get, but it won’t come from Vacationland (I predicted he’d be out by then and backing Haley here).

If Christie does stick it out until Super Tuesday, I don’t think a campaign that can’t put 2000 verifiable signatures in front of the Secretary of State would invest in a write-in campaign. It’s not like he’s Joe Biden or something. Jeesh.

By the way, candidates or PACs running ads in New Hampshire who are not Trump, claiming they are the only candidate Trump is attacking, are lying. Have you been to a Trump rally? Trump cuts loose on everyone. But at the Ralley in Claremont, he had Gov. Christie’s back. After someone in the audience shouted it out, he must have come to his defense at least a half dozen times. You can’t call Chris Christie a fat pig.

He did; I was there.

No polling for Maine, by the way. I looked. But I can’t imagine Christie is polling better there than Asa Hutchinson which is a number that looks a log like a donut.

 

The post Maine Won’t Put Chris Christie on Its 2024 Republican Primary Ballot appeared first on Granite Grok.

We know that Karine Jeanne-Pierre lies and twists the truth every time her lips move behind the podium, but when addressing Border Security, she refuses to face the facts and address the issue.

It makes my blood boil how she spews falsehoods and a room full of “journalists” sit quietly and refuse to challenge the Press Secretary. The White House has been inserting John Kirby into the mix with KJP because he has a little more credibility, but what he has is waning. They convolute the two issues of Legal Immigration and the illegal act of crashing our Border. One walks over the bridge, and the other walks through the water and squats under the bridge. While Congress is on Christmas break, 100,000 illegals will enter our country. That is not the Republican’s fault but that of Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris.

Jeanne-Pierre is insulting with her lies and her condescending tone. She uses the same argument every time someone questions the illegals, and not a single reporter calls her. She refers to the broken Immigration System that Biden inherited from Trump but says nothing of the control Trump had over the Border. These media reps are complicit by allowing her to get her soundbite that will be used on every mainstream media outlet without rebuff. Kirby is no better.

This week, Kirby was asked about illegals apprehended and given court dates in 2030, seven years away. Nobody will have a clue where to look for these people in seven years. His response was an avoidance of the question. He said that was a concern of DHS, and he would not comment on their practices. The Department of Homeland Security falls under the Executive Branch, and Biden and his spokespeople should be accountable for its policies and actions. The House has threatened to impeach Mayorkas, the head of the DHS, for months. They have the evidence needed. Pull the trigger.

How long can we wait to take action against Biden and anyone even remotely responsible for the surge of humanity across the Rio Grande? Every one of them is complicit in destroying the sovereignty of America. There were only 19 terrorists in the cell that staged the attack on America on 9/11. There have been over 120 known terrorists apprehended in three years, and we do not know how many have deflected apprehension and are somewhere in America.

The Border is beyond a chaotic state, with over 200 crossers per Border Agent per day coming to America. There is no vetting. We have no idea where these military-aged men are from that Joe Biden has welcomed into our land. Biden’s actions, or non-actions, are criminal if not treasonous, but what the brainwashed people who get their news from the mainstream believe is that the Republicans are to blame for the twelve million new residents of America. The number of crossers who have been allowed to stay is greater than the population of 41 states. No, KJP, Biden has not done all he can to curb the Border crisis. He has done nothing, and that was his intention.

The post KJP Confuses Immigration With Border Assault appeared first on Granite Grok.

Hello, Friend of Freedom! First off, let me wish you a Merry Christmas! I know some of you may choose other holidays to celebrate and not choose to celebrate Christmas, and some of you will not celebrate at all. Hey, that’s why is great to be in America! We have the freedom to celebrate our faith as expressed for centuries, and we have the freedom to do nothing at all.

That is why the topic of Church and State is so important.

Last week, we discovered that the often-quoted phrase to suppress people’s expression of faith in the public square, i.e., Separation of Church and State, is not in any of our founding documents.

For this week, let’s dig a little deeper to see how our founding fathers came up with the wording for the First Amendment.

First of all, we should examine the recordings of thoughts and actions by Congress in chambers. Did you know that every official word and act that occurs in congressional chambers is recorded in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (which is required by the CONSTITUTION in Art. i Section 5,:3.)? Therefore, we have the discussion of the ninety founding fathers in their first federal Congress.

The dates from June 8th to September 25th, 1789, reveal intense discussion in regard to religion and its expression in the new Nation they were bringing to fruition. The foundation of every Article in the Constitution began with this foundational thought that they were seeking to break the rule of the crown, which they found oppressive. They wanted to build a national government that would prevent what had happened to them under Great Britain’s reign from ever being implemented against future generations, not just their own.

One key area of rule that the King exercised was control of the church. This started under the reign of Henry VIII. Long story short, he wanted a divorce from his wife, who could not produce a male heir, which, by the way, was expected in every realm of society. Henry was pious and really did not have issues with the Catholic church, but became obstinate when he was not allowed to pursue a divorce. There is a lot here, and it can be studied on its own. The result was that Henry appointed his own ArchBishop and created the Anglican church, of which he was now Pope if you will. He confiscated all the monastery holdings in England and redistributed the lands and wealth to his newly appointed cabinet members and, of course, himself.

So here we have the foundation of what resulted in the way religion was practiced during our American Revolution situation. The government directed the affairs of the church, and the King was really the leader of the church. In charge of appointing Bishoprics and clergy that were paid to do the job. (Reader, this is a condensed version, but it is accurate). So, when the colonies were created, the King sent clergymen paid by the government to fill the pulpits in colonial America. Their allegiance was to the King (George III.) and not to the people. He was carrying on the traditions of Henry VIII.

As the founding fathers met in congressional session, according to their records, the discussion was that they were living under a legally established religion by the national government to the exclusion of all others. They sought to do away with government control of faith (religion). Very simply put, they often repeated in the congressional record of conversations that Congress cannot officially establish any one denomination in America. As James Madison put it, “Nor shall a national religion be established.”

The word denomination and religion were interchangeable at the time. So, looking at the history of WHY we have the FIRST AMENDMENT, it was due to the error that Great Britain created from the sin of Henry Vlll. By that, I mean he destroyed the connections of the Catholic church and in his lust (one of the seven deadly sins), and Henry was a lustful man. He created a religion designed for himself! He also had many mistresses.

But back to the First Amendment.

Now that we understand their thinking and what they wanted it was clear that the government could not be involved in promoting one religious persuasion above another. There were four versions of the First Amendment before settling on the one we have. The first version read, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second one added any (particular) denomination, and the third, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another.” Finally, we have, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When it was finally accepted and approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion and how the exercise thereof should be handled. The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE forbade the federal government from establishing a single religion or national denomination. The second is the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, which prohibits the federal government from interfering with PUBLIC expressions of people’s faith. Please note that the First Amendment controls the actions of the Federal Government, NOT the actions of citizens.

Summing it up, it is clear the founding fathers did not want the government to create a state church, but they did expect religion to be regulated in public spaces, but that Biblical Principles and values lived out IN society, NOT restricted to observance in a separate building once a week on the Sabbath.

We will continue our study after Christmas!

Until next time…

Allen

The post Church and State, Part II appeared first on Granite Grok.

New Hampshire is not a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and no cities or towns are either. It passed a law prohibiting the local enforcement of nutty anti-second Amendment rules emanating from the Biden administration. And now there is long-shot legislation to kick the EPA to the curb.

As introduced, HB1294 would prohibit the state of New Hampshire from enforcing Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

 

This bill states that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has no constitutional validity in this state, and requires that the New Hampshire department of environmental services provide for all environmental protection in this state.

For the sake of accuracy, this is correct. Like much of what exists inside the Beltway, EPA is an extraconstitutional entity, but mitigating its influence will not be as easy as passing HB 1294. The tyranny of indifference to bureaucrat despotism is not unlike the culture of insouciance related to election tampering. It is easier for people to live with the devil they know than to wrestle with the problem. HB1294 might as well abolish the Federal Department of Education.

 

Because the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is not authorized by any article or amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency are void in New Hampshire. The state and it’s political subdivisions, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency shall have no force of effect in New Hampshire.

 

A few observations about picking fights.

State Legislators’ role is to build barriers between unconstitutional overreach and local control. To protect their voters from the Feds and their State. In fact, someone should teach a class to people claiming to be Republicans about how to inform constituents who ask them to introduce bills about why it might not be the best thing. This would likewise aid them in explaining why they voted against bills with tentacles proposed by other legislators.

It is also their job to protect the locals from home-grown tyranny by using the state’s power to protect natural rights from local overreach.

Additionally, legislators must grasp whether a proposed bill – based on the balance of seats held by either party – will likely do more damage than good. A recent pro-life bill that has no chance of passing (while well-intentioned) packs the Democrat’s magazines on an issue Republicans have been struggling with at the ballot box. It is a good bill with a proper and moral purpose, aligned with party values – but with zero chance of passage, it is a landmine Republicans will have a hard time dodging come November.

Making New Hampshire a sanctuary state from gross federal overreach is always something that should be on the radar, but HB1294 is good for a few blog posts – perhaps a bit of spin in the national spotlight (applause from one side, scorn, and disbelief the other) but not much else. It is dead on arrival with some potential for a cameo role in the upcoming Democrat Produced Play – Republicans are nutty extremists.

That said, and with an appropriate number of political contacts and readers disenfranchised, I am also a big fan of going big or staying home. Democrats do that better, and I’m sure I’ve bitched about it a few hundred times. The Left is not afraid to throw a hail mary on every play. They show the deep ball and somehow get someone across the middle for a first down. They move the ball. Take points when they can.

But New Hampshire Republicans have been scoring points. They have incrementally expanded liberty in the Granite State with almost no majority to speak of despite lousy attendance. They removed regulatory barriers, lowered taxes, and made New Hampshire a beacon in the Northeast for businesses, occupations, and families. In small but great strides, the Dems will completely unravel the first day they have the majority and a Governor who will sing whatever they put on her desk.

I know. It sounds like I’m contradicting myself, but I am not. You have to know your audience and your odds. Dems do not tolerate absences on critical votes, but terrorizing your caucus doesn’t play on the right. Dems can go long on every play, even with a one-vote majority; Republicans can’t. Sorry, that’s just a fact. You’re not getting HB1294 through. And the pro-life bill isn’t going anywhere but into Dem campaign ads, and it could cost the GOP its majority unless leadership finds a way to thread the needle on messaging.

It can be done, and we’re here to help, but as much as I’d like New Hampshire to be a Sanctuary State from a long list of Federal agencies, this is not the legislative crowd to whom you should sing that song. But don’t toss it out. Save it for a different day. You might find yourself with a veto-proof majority as we did in 2011/2012, in which case, you still need to be careful about the long balls you throw but also be ready to throw a lot of them.

 

The post New Hampshire Bill Would Make the Granite State a Sanctuary From the EPA appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Donald Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballot has sparked quite a bit of outrage, as it should have.

Two state courts had already rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment provision of the US Constitution barring anyone who engaged in insurrection from holding office applies here because, quite frankly, it’s absurd. Here’s what Section 3 says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This was put in place to deal with former members of the Confederate military and government following the Civil War. Donald Trump, love him or hate him, did not lead an army, or even a part of one, in armed rebellion against the United States or try to establish another nation. Moreover — small detail — he was formally acquitted of “incitement of insurrection” by his second impeachment trial. So, there’s that.

As such, and in addition to being patently absurd on its face, the Colorado ruling raises its own constitutional issues regarding the 5th Amendment’s right to due process. The US Supreme Court is almost certain to laugh this ruling out of their chambers as they strike it down.

Democrats know this isn’t going anywhere. So, what’s the point? There are several, none of which has to do with keeping Trump off any ballot.

Trump supporters are quick to assume that the Democrats are so deranged by their hatred of the 45th president that they’ll do anything to stop him, even barring him from running. Actually, I think the opposite is true. The Democrats see their best chance to win in November 2024 – not just the presidency but in down-ticket races as well — is if Trump is the Republican nominee. What we have learned over the past half-decade is that Trump is a bigger motivating factor for Democrats – voters and donors alike – than he is for Republicans. Democrats are not about to give that up. Their worst nightmare, at this point, is if Nikki Haley somehow managed to pull off a primary victory.

While many – almost all — polls show Trump beating Biden today, mostly those polls are within the margin of error. Trump loses to a “generic Democrat” by 8 points (i.e… someone other than Biden, and, anticipating another chess move, I personally don’t think Biden will be the ultimate nominee). Haley, on the other hand, is crushing Biden by double digits.

From the Democrats’ perspective, Haley would be able to make the historical case for being the first female president, negating Democrats’ advantage among women. She is a minority, throwing a wrench into their “Republicans are racist” mantra. She’s not Trump, which undermines their “Democracy is under threat from insurrectionists” campaign theme. And Haley plays well in the suburbs, where Republicans have been struggling in recent cycles.

If another presidential candidate such as Haley were to emerge to take the Trump factors off the board for Democrats, and a ten-plus percentage point popular blowout victory by a Republican became plausible, this would send ripples through congressional and senatorial races nationwide. Under such a scenario, Republicans would be sure to solidify their hold on the House and win back the Senate. This is what the Colorado move is designed to prevent.

Haley is gaining momentum in Iowa, is especially gaining in New Hampshire, and after those two primaries, the contest goes to her home state of South Carolina. If Trump somehow loses those first three states, or even the latter two, the shock of it would create an opening for Haley to parley that momentum into a Super Tuesday win. Still a long shot, but it would be an opening, and the Democrats aren’t taking any chances.

The Colorado move, therefore, by design: A) Sucks up all the media oxygen and public attention away from the primary states and Trump’s surging challenger and puts the spotlight back on Trump where the Democrats want it. B) Creates a “rally around Trump” effect within the Republican voter base, again blunting Haley’s ability to make inroads. And C) sets up a future line of attack to rally Democrat voters against the “conservative” US Supreme Court. After SCOTUS inevitably overrules Colorado, look for the Democrats to let loose a broadside accusing the conservative court – especially Trump’s appointees — of “deciding the election.” AKA – Democracy is under threat!

In chess, this would be akin to a gambit sacrificing a piece to gain a stronger, overall strategic position heading into the end game. Will the move work? Will Republicans take the bait? How will Republicans counter? Time will tell.

 

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

The post Colorado: Democrats Know This Isn’t Going Anywhere. So, What’s the Point? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Neocon Nikki has momentum. Not against Trump, not yet. The Donald’s base continues to back him no matter what. That significant lead is not currently in jeopardy – like that or not. But Haley’s campaign vacuum has been sucking up DeSantis supporters, and it’s killing him.

And yes, that was a deliberate (otherwise generic) reference to see who among her Republican supporters would like to accuse me of misogyny. Please try. Seriously. I’d love ot have that debate.

And for the DeSantis folks – I like Gov Ron a lot more than Necon Nikki. I’d take DeSantis seven days a week and twice on Sunday before letting Haley sit her backside behind the Resolute desk. But the DeSantis campaign has struggled mightily after a quick start. Last March, he was ahead of Trump briefly but then collapsed. A fall that continues as we wind our way toward Iowa’s Caucus and New Hampshire’s primary. A loss of momentum that is beginning to show up in national polls.

I don’t think it’s Ron.

The DeSantis message is the same. His priorities are the same. I’ve seen him in person and watched him speak. DeSantis has a lot of good ideas, and he’s proven that with the majority behind him, he can do good things. But the campaign’s the thing, and it has failed the candidate. A much-needed shake-up was too little too late, and if he can’t or won’t go negative on Haley in the next three weeks, he will likely not survive past Super Tuesday.

For Haley supporters, and this is just my opinion – she is better than a Democrat. She appeals to the not Trump crowd. Haley is a woman, and Democrats don’t want to have to run against that. She has executive experience and international diplomacy experience, and did I mention she’s a woman? Oh, and she’s not old! Haley has a lot that appeals to people who are not paying attention. A horse that could win the big race, and the “anyone but Trump folks” are leaving Gov. Ron and lining up to support her in New Hampshire.

 

An interesting poll out of New Hampshire [UML Poll Here] [Topline pdf Here] shows something perhaps many expected.

President Donald Trump still dominates the field with 52% and leads in every demographic.  Nikki Haley comes in second with 22%, and Ron DeSantis third with 10%.   However, if you dig into the demographics of the respondents, what you discover is that Nikki Haley has gained her support from Ron DeSantis’ primary support base.

Previously DeSantis’ main support base was from wealthy, older, white males.  DeSantis has now lost this base to Nikki Haley, as her demographic support shows the rich, older, white males, what you might call the country club circuit, have dumped the Florida Governor in favor of the former UN Ambassador.

The rich, older, white males now support Nikki Haley over Ron DeSantis.  This explains why Haley’s gains are all DeSantis losses.

 

A few weeks ago, Haley’s fledgling rise in New Hampshire wasn’t translating nationally, but that has begun to change. RCP shows Haley erasing gaps with DeSantis and surpassing him in places where he had held second behind Trump for most of the year.

 

• Iowa (FOX): Trump 52, DeSantis 18, Haley 16, Ramaswamy 7, Christie 3, Hutchinson 0
• Iowa (Emerson): Trump 50, Haley 17, DeSantis 15, Ramaswamy 8, Christie 4, Hutchinson 0
• NH (UMASS): Trump 52, Haley 22, Christie 6, DeSantis 10, Ramaswamy 4, Hutchinson 1.
• NH (St Anselm): Trump 44, Haley 30, Christie 12, DeSantis 6, Ramaswamy 5, Hutchinson
• National (NYT): Trump 64, Haley 11, DeSantis 9, Ramaswamy 5, Christie 3, Hutchinson
• National (Yahoo!): Trump 56, DeSantis 15, Haley 10, Ramaswamy 3, Christie 1, Hutchinson 1
• National (Quinnepac): Trump 67, DeSantis 11, Haley 11, Ramaswamy 4, Christie 3, Hutchinson 0.

 

It’s not over until it’s over, but DeSantis needs to beat Haley in Iowa and Christie in the Granite State to remain viable. I think Christie is done by or just after Nevada or South Carolina when he will put all of his eggs in Haley’s basket. She’s a hell of a lot more GOPe than Ron, and Christie isn’t likely to campaign for the third-place guy when he was that guy and dropped out.

 

The post Night Cap: Nikki Haley Picks Ron DeSantis’ Pockets – Walks Away With his NH Primary Base appeared first on Granite Grok.

Thanks to the progressives on both sides of the moat, we now live in an America where a girl can work hard, practice, become a top-tier athlete in her sport, and lose a college scholarship to some middling dude pretending to be a girl. And how is that fair?

If she pretends to be a boy, she can’t compete with girls. If she remains a girl, boys can steal her scholarship opportunities, which, for some young women, might be the only way they land on a more desirable campus. And if she complains, she risks being blacklisted and outcast by people who likely agree but lack the courage to take a stand. And it matters. Washington University has broken the seventh seal by giving a college scholarship for women’s sports to a guy.

 

Male takes women’s volleyball scholarship at @UW … a soon-to-be Big 10 school

Stealing the already few opportunities for women at the collegiate level. How can he be proud?@UWVolleyball should rescind the scholarship if they really care about women. He can play with the men. pic.twitter.com/Dj7VcDWlW4

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) December 13, 2023

 

Not to worry. Most, if not all, of the girls competing against this volleyball drag queen had no idea she was a he, and the ‘elites’ writing the rules – much like those for the COVID vaccines – encourage less transparency. (Related: 6 ft 2 in Transwoman Athlete “Stands Out” as She Dominates Biologically Female Opponents.)

 

Marshi Smith, co-founder of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, told Reduxx that her organization knows “many of the girls [Drageset]’s playing against do not know that they are competing against a male.”

“There has been no consideration from his family to tell female athletes or coaches the truth,” Smith said. “They have not been transparent, so girls are repeatedly and unknowingly put at a disadvantage and not given the chance to opt out over increased safety risks.”

 

And there are risks to the girls, young women, the culture, and most importantly, the future of sport for women. What point is there in trying to excel at something when you know that at any point in the arc of your sporting life, some C-Team beta male can put on the same uniform, insist you call him Francis, and to just rob you of not just victory and opportunity but require you to dress and undress in the same locker room.

In none of these instances is your comfort a concern. So, why would you bother?

 

The post New World Order: Men Are Officially Taking College Sports Scholarships from Women appeared first on Granite Grok.

As younger generations grow older and take on adult responsibilities, they will, at some point, struggle with the cost of housing. This year alone, more than 582,000 people in the United States are without a home, with about three in ten people being part of families with children.

Governments today have implemented various policies recommended by different schools of economic thought, predominantly that of the Keynesians, to address the issue of homelessness.

Despite their efforts, the total number of chronically and nonchronically homeless individuals continues to grow. To reduce these numbers would require a phenomenon that appears enigmatic, but there is no enigma. The solution deals with the most fundamental economic law of Austrolibertarianism and its satisfaction by abstraction: human action. With this foundational lens, the removal of zoning laws is derived to address homelessness in the United States and abroad.

The laws of supply and demand are known by all who have a basic understanding of economics, but what is less known is that they are praxeological laws. Praxeology is the study of the implications logically derived from the action axiom. This foundational axiom posits that “man acts,” and from that statement, all conclusions of praxeology are logically and a priori obtained. Thus, as Ludwig von Mises concludes in his magnum opus, Human Action,

Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

A priori knowledge and justification are procured without experience, for they are logically derived. Examples include “all bachelors are unmarried” and “two plus two equals four.” The meaning of the word “bachelor,” the state of being unmarried, can be analytically deduced, and an understanding of the addition property and the integer two will result in an answer of four for the equation without having to “experience” it. Moreover, a priori knowledge is a foundation that determines a chain of necessity through deductive claims and noncontradiction. Accordingly, in the case of praxeology, to say man does not act would be contradicted by one doing so (“act” referring to purposeful behavior that employs means to reach a given end). Furthermore, as Murray N. Rothbard writes in his book Economic Controversies, “Since praxeology begins with a true axiom, A, all the propositions that can be deduced from this axiom must also be true. For if A implies B, and A is true, then B must also be true.”

Unlike a hypothesis that must be proven or unproven, a priori statements are true in all possible worlds. Their negation can never be logically valid. It MUST be the case that “there are no square circles” (B) because its negation (“there are square circles”) would violate the law of noncontradiction (A). Similarly, it MUST be the case that if “two plus two equals four” (A) is true, then “four minus two equals two” (B) is true as well.

It is frequently asked, “How can praxeology be applied to the material world if it is only theory?” It is the same with mathematics: by identifying components of abstract models along with their material analogs. This process is called “catallactics,” the application of laws concerning human action to market analysis. The removal of zoning laws to address homelessness is derived from this epistemology.

Praxeology: The Basis for Removal

Zoning laws are specific rules and regulations for pieces of land divided into zones by the government or a municipality. They began with the Los Angeles zoning ordinances of 1904 and the New York City zoning resolution of 1916 and were originally motivated by racism, but they are now believed to help the housing industry. The laws dictate allowable uses of land or property inside zoning districts, meaning certain land can only be used for a predetermined reason, like agriculture. This creates an artificial limitation on the total amount of residential buildings that can be constructed in a given area, thereby leading to an issue where price cannot be brought down by supply.

In other words, they eliminate the houses, apartments, etc. that otherwise could have been built. Consequently, houses become so expensive that they become a hassle to afford for those without a lot of money, which tends to be the case for younger generations trying to find their footing, especially those from marginalized ethnic and racial backgrounds without a trust fund.

The laws of supply and demand were briefly mentioned as the epistemological justification of the suggested policy. The axiom that “man acts” informs this law because to every end there are means that must be implemented. These can come in the form of any given market product that is desired according to man’s intrinsic value hierarchy. Simply put, he desires to buy products that will allow him to accomplish his most desired ends first. The law of demand is, at its core, marginal utility applied to catallactics. Rothbard writes, “All action involves the employment of scarce means to attain the most valued ends. Man has the choice of using the scarce means for various alternative ends, and the ends that he chooses are the ones he values most highly. The less urgent wants are those that remain unsatisfied.”

Of equal importance and magnitude is the law of supply, which states that as the price of a good increases, the amount of that good supplied on the market will also increase and vice versa. It is also derived from praxeology because as the potential utility gained from undertaking an action increases, the likelihood of performing it increases also.

These laws in return tell us what happens with the removal of zoning laws. By limiting the total number of residential buildings that can be constructed, sellers and renters can increase their prices exponentially without fear of having no buyers. Ergo, if demand is high (which tends to be the case in the housing industry because shelter is essential) and supply is not allowed to rise, prices will inflate with people still willing to buy.

Ever Hear of Tort Law?

There are several counterarguments to nonzoning with the most common being that they promote safety by keeping hazardous activities away from residential and public areas. While this is a valid complaint, there are other ways to do this without feeding a housing crisis—namely, self-regulation via tort law. According to the American Museum of Tort Laws, “Tort law has been called the law of wrongful injuries. It is the law that protects and compensates people who have been injured by the negligence, or recklessness, or intentional acts of wrongdoers.”

An industrialist who chooses to build in residential areas will be liable for any damage incurred by the residents from their activity. Under tort law, it is possible to sue for noise, air, and land pollution, just to name a few. This is the same for unseen effects because it is possible to trace their origins back to an industrialist’s activity. In addition, because there is no state limit to liability, the penalties can be severe. This incentivizes insurance companies to raise their premiums and correctly estimate risks and costs because it is more likely for them to get sued. They are also more inclined to make the developers adopt reasonable safety standards or charge exorbitant premiums because related lawsuits are the largest class of civil litigation. Although this is ex post, meaning the damages have already occurred, developers would want to insure against this liability and operate elsewhere.

It is important to note that other factors do come into play when dealing with homelessness. But as long as man acts (A), affecting supply and demand (B), and A is true, then B must also be true. And if B implies a relationship between zoning laws and homelessness (C), then it must be true as well. Furthermore, the relationship between homelessness and zoning laws is a priori and therefore true in all cases. Thus, we can logically conclude that the downward pressure zoning laws placed on supply limits the accessibility of housing and thereby increases the total number of unsheltered individuals.

Conclusion

To picture a world where people are unable to afford a home is to think of a world with low life expectancy, decreased birth rates, and more unfortunate fates that succeeding generations will be subject to with the continued existence of zoning—a law that hides its perniciousness under the disguise of prosperity.

Taiwo Agbeluyi is a freshman at Divine Savior Holy Angels who loves to learn about Economics and Political Philosophy. She is fascinated by human action and its application. She also likes to apply her analytical skills and creativity to building robots for various challenges and competitions. Taiwo is a curious and ambitious student who strives to make a positive difference in her community and beyond.

 

Taiwo Agbeluyi | 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 Zoning Laws: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing appeared first on Granite Grok.

Thank you to those who use Gmail and participated in our recent research project. We asked Gmail users who signed up for the Daily Grok if they were getting their emailed newsletter every day. Those who responded were not. Gmail appears to be embargoing our content.

I checked the newsletter plugin send history for the emails provided in each instance. They were being sent every day, but the recipients were not getting them, and they were not in spam. Whitelisting did not help.

I am at a loss for how to proceed. Google doesn’t have to explain itself to me, so all I can do is share what we have found with the world and see if they have the same issue. If you are a center-right new media concern with a newsletter or content that gets emailed, are your Gmail users receiving it?

You’d best ask. I’m sure many are, but then some may not, and I lack the time or resources to pursue this past the following. For those willing to do it, I’d suggest opening a free proton mail account and signing up for the newsletter using that address.

Please.

We rely on increasing traffic to generate ad revenue, above donations, which are many and generous (and we appreciate every dollar) but not enough to cover every expense. Our 2024 budget is not yet fully funded. We can pick at that with increased traffic, which we might get if Google didn’t appear to block access to our newsletter.

We have more than a few folks who only come to the site because of that newsletter. To those folks, please visit the site at least once daily if you are not interested in setting up a separate email to bypass Google’s censorship. We’d appreciate it, and you’d get to read the content you wanted all along.

We will let you know if anything changes about Gmail and our newsletter. If you are a Gmail user getting the newsletter in Gmail, please let us know. Perhaps there’s a “secret handshake” we can share with readers to assist them in resolving the issue.

 

[Update] A reader has informed me that he used his Hotmail account to subscribe and is not receiving these either. I verified that our application has been sending him the newsletter daily. If I read it correctly, Microsoft owns Hotmail, which is the Windows Outlook mail service with the vestigial @Hotmail extensions for existing users (before 2012). We’ll test this against Outlook and see what happens. As for the reader, he says he is opening a free Protonmail account, and we appreciate that.

The post Is Gmail Blocking Your Email Newsletter, Too!!! [Update] appeared first on Granite Grok.

With all the devastating news about urban crime, drug overdoses, illegal immigration, rampant homelessness, out-of-control budgets, and educational failures, it is encouraging that President Donald Trump has committed his next administration to saving America’s cities.

As Just the News reported, “With the nation’s first primary state as a backdrop, former President Donald Trump took aim Saturday at Democrats’ urban strongholds, vowing to both secure and revitalize blue cities weary from years of violence and economic decay.”

As the outlet reported, President Trump told a crowd in Durham, New Hampshire, “We’re going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. It will be the greatest investment ever made.”

This is encouraging. All too often, Republicans have neglected our great cities – or been openly hostile toward them because of their Democratic leadership.

Perhaps the most famous example of this was an Oct. 29, 1975 speech in which then-President Gerald Ford explained why he would not help New York City with its fiscal crisis.

The following day, the New York Daily News had a huge page-one headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”

President Ford was philosophically right as a fiscal conservative and federalist, but the political message was devastating for Republicans.

I served with Buffalo Congressman Jack Kemp, who was the most innovative pro-city Republican with whom I have ever worked. Kemp developed a program for enterprise zones to help encourage business development in the poorest parts of cities. Working with civil rights activist Bob Woodson, the two developed a program to allow people in public housing to put in sweat equity and eventually gain ownership of their units. Kemp and Woodson followed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in trying to create an ownership society.

One of the most striking moments in U.S. House debate history was when an outraged Democrat Congressman Barney Frank, who opposed Kemp’s proposal, argued that under the plan, a poor family in New York City might be able to acquire a property worth $1 million in the New York market. It did not seem to occur to Frank that helping poor people become wealthy was a good idea.

President Trump, a product of Queens and Manhattan, understands that we cannot be a great nation if our great cities decay and die. Consider his own words from a speech about saving America’s cities in Reno, Nevada:

“[W]e’re going to indemnify police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions on crime. They’re going to be indemnified… Policemen are forced not to do anything when they want to, and under the threat of losing their pension, their house, and their family, they lose everything, and they’re afraid to move. … We’re not going to let that happen anymore.

“In addition, we will take over our horribly-run Washington, DC – and clean up, renovate, and rebuild our Capitol so that it is no longer a nightmare of murder and crime. You see what’s happening. But rather, will become the most beautiful Capitol anywhere in the world. It’s a mess. It’s a filthy, disgusting mess. Our parks will be cleaned, the tents and graffiti, all of these tents and graffiti, right in the middle of the most beautiful parks in the world. Those tents and graffiti will be removed. Slum areas will be demolished and rebuilt to the highest level of architectural elegance. Washington, DC, will become a symbol of beauty, security, freedom, and strength…

“In addition to our Capitol, we are going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. Better than they have ever been before. We are going to focus on our cities… It will be the greatest investment ever made in these cities. And we will work closely with Democrat leaders. They are all run by Democrats if you can believe it. But we’ll work closely with the Democrat leaders of all these failing places to make sure that this rebuilding will be a lasting and compassionate one. It’ll be a great rebuilding. Safety will again be restored so that our children can go out with their parents, mother, and father and play in the park without being beat up, molested, or shot. Students will be able to walk to school in peace, criminal rates will plummet, and people will long, just long, to move back to the city again.”

The fact that President Trump explicitly included working closely with Democrat leaders is a good step toward making the second Trump administration more bipartisan – but still deeply committed to reform.

This was an encouraging speech for our future and a real commitment to save America’s citizens. It is a good step toward bringing Americans together and healing some of the partisan divisions.

Those who are committed to union incompetence, leftwing extremism, and keeping power will fight against a program to save America’s cities. Most Americans, however, will be excited by the vision of a safe, prosperous, and forward-looking urban future.

I expect the American people will win.

 

Newt Gingrich | RealClear Wire

The post President Trump’s Plan to Save America’s Cities appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s now obvious, since our awakening to Fake News, that truth has been a stranger, an unknown that few recognize and few are willing to consider. This is the intended result of at least three generations of media preaching and academic lecturing against its ageless reliability.

This agenda has revised history and today’s events into their slanted versions, and it was a must since truth is inherently woven throughout our American Founding.

This coming election has the establishment doing flips in order to protect its authority and territory from Donald Trump’s publicly pledged threats, which in turn makes him a must target since he represents “the last man standing.”

This means he has the financial resources, love of country, personal knowledge, and stamina to challenge the status quo. Who is left that could cope with what Trump has dealt with? And this blends over into many of his former Presidential associates who are being legally harassed with the aim of incurring financial ruin. The message is clear, and it’s meant to be!

So, anything goes. Already, we’ve watched as lie after lie mounts without any public or judicial pushback. This is publicly insulting when the term “insurrection” is cast like confetti upon Trump and all those patriotic hostages from January 6th! As a result, America’s silence incriminates all of the silent, both citizens and public officials, but particularly the latter, who have sworn an oath to defend and uphold our Constitution.

Trump’s messaging is not only truthful but after his first four Presidential years, his campaign promises and word messaging have been both validated by action and with the public’s noticing of its truth. That last item, words of truth, reminds me of one of Mom’s sayings, “The truth hurts.” Trump’s bluntness originally offended, but in the end, he was only speaking the truth, what needed saying since it’s been absent for too long!

Once in office, the media ramped up accounts of his gruff and brutish style. Actually, it did seem gruff since again, the “brutal truth” had been buried for so long! It’s true; his talk is not of the career-minded and glib-talking politician, but that’s his appeal, which is reviving our American pulse.

Trump was more than successful in his prior years, so he need not follow the career politician’s urgency for voter appeal. Therefore, he was free to condemn America’s ongoing immigration issue, which sent alarms throughout the establishment. His 2016 republican opponents were shocked at the mere mention of this issue.

In reality, both political parties are content as cheap labor pleases one while building the voter base for the other. Not so with Trump’s 2016 messaging; his concern was for representing the “forgotten” American and for bettering the country that he loves! So yes, his bluntness was shocking, even gruff, but it had a beneficial purpose, and it was long overdue!

Remember when charges of “fake news” first started? Voters then began to notice and compare what was reported versus what they actually witnessed, especially when tuning into the latest Trump rally! As a result, his words again gained validation along with a positive recognition of their truth.

That “fake” moniker preceded another media truism: fake news is “the enemy of the people.” Immediately, the media grabbed onto it as the crazy rhetoric of a power-hungry dictator. However, as time passed, the stream of false reporting continued, which in itself validated his follow-up media blast.

His defiant march to “the Church of the Presidents” after its 2020 fire prompted the media’s ridicule when, in front of the church, he held the Bible up high. Contrary to press accounts, many were pleased and gratified with finally having a President who proudly exhibited his faith in public rather than referring to our Creator by saying, “You know, the thing.”

In his recent rally in Durham, New Hampshire, his words were blunt but necessary and well received. Trump’s messaging gruffly stated, in part, that Biden is the “worst, most incompetent, and most corrupt President in the history of our Country.” At this point of Biden’s term, who’s to argue?

It’s time that Americans shed their sensitive frailties for the preservation of our nation. Blunt and/or gruff language is often the most reliable and necessary backbone of leadership. Yes, truth is often hurtful, but it’s our most formidable and protective weapon against this evil, and thanks to a gruff-speaking leader, we are now fortunate to have this chance to welcome its return from those dark shadows!

The post Truth Can Be Hurtful But It Is Our Most Potent Weapon Against Evil appeared first on Granite Grok.

Tucker Carlson, who recently announced his own new media network, has been making the podcast rounds, talking to hosts of a variety of different ideological backgrounds.

An interview a few weeks ago with Dave Smith had a moment that went viral when both men proclaimed Bill Buckley as a great villain of the 20th Century. (Murray Rothbard would agree.) Recently a new clip with Glenn Greenwald made the social media rounds with Carlson claiming that “libertarian economics is a scam perpetrated by the beneficiaries of the economic system.”

Understandably, this quote made Carlson an immediate target for libertarians who frequently celebrate his takes on foreign policy but often cringe when he ventures into economic commentary. While the reaction to defend the label of “libertarian” is both understandable and important, particularly at a time where progressive-financed economic centers are seeking to launder economic interventionism as a “rightwing” cause, the reality is that Carlson’s critiques are not entirely invalid.

While the most prominent libertarian of our era, Ron Paul, and many accomplished libertarian economists, many of whom are affiliated with the Mises Institute, have stayed committed to a rigorous defense of free markets, the unfortunate reality is many of the organizations that are most active in political policy have often failed to do so. For those who have spent most of their time in Washington, most of their experience with self-proclaimed libertarian policymakers will be at cocktail parties at the Cato Institute, AEI, or one of the many Koch-funded outlets.

If one gives Carlson the grace to understand his underlying concern, his larger criticism of alleged defenders of “free markets” becomes more palatable.

Though libertarians rightfully scoff at the notion that libertarian values have ever held any strong grip on DC policymakers, it is true that “economic liberalism” has become the default label of almost all economic policy think tanks. Particularly in a post-Cold War world, the idea of any serious person in Washington describing themselves as anything but an advocate for “capitalism” was alien prior to the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both have proudly described themselves as “capitalists.”

While any definition of “capitalism” that can be claimed by any modern Democrat, or even the overwhelming majority of Republicans, could not at all be confused as “libertarian,” there has long been a class of “libertarian economist” who has maintained a general skepticism of direct government intervention while ignoring, or at sometimes cheering, one of the greatest drains on American prosperity: monetary policy.

The most obvious example is Milton Friedman. While numerous critiques of Friedman and his monetarist followers can be found by Austrian economists, one specific example of this blind spot is particularly worth noting: his advocacy of quantitative easing. Though Friedman passed in 2006, years before the Fed’s response to the financial crisis sparked by former Objectivist Alan Greenspan’s housing bubble, he explicitly advocated for Japan’s central bank to use money printing to buy government bonds as a way out of a financial crisis in the late 1990s. While Friedman would often voice skepticism of the wisdom of policymakers and central bankers, the unfortunate reality is that his economic views often helped provide useful intellectual cover to help justify new aggressive uses of their power. Ben Bernanke, a student of Friedman, brought this playbook to the Federal Reserve, making extensive use of Friedman’s recommendations.

It would be unfair to suggest that all Beltway “libertarian” economists actively advocate Bernanke’s moves. Given the gradual specialization of economics as a discipline, the reality is that many of the economists entrenched at various beltway organizations likely thought little about the larger consequences of the Fed. The problem, however, is that being blind to the broader economic distortions created by artificially-low interest rates, monetary inflation, and the ballooning of the Fed’s balance sheets makes it difficult to recognize the challenges they have created for Americans.

This has been on full display in recent years with the growing politicization of big business. Whether it is in the form of DEI and ESG requirements from large firms, the willingness to cooperate with the state for matters of censorship of Big Tech platforms, the weaponization of private employment as a means for policy enforcement over covid, the reflexive nature of “libertarians” to come to the defense of big business has created undeniable tension with a broader respect for individual liberty. As Carlson told Greenwald, “I think a smarter way to assess an economic system is by its results.”

Any libertarian economic thinking that results in a defense of the covid-regime, no matter how nuance is applied, is deserving of scorn by anyone who cares about the liberty for their families.

Similarly, the indifference of too many libertarian policy wonks towards monetary policies has led them to ignore many of the issues that concern individuals like Carlson. Reflexively defending the rights of increasingly activist big business ignores the role that Fed policy has played in corporate consolidation, effectively providing a subsidy to corporate America. While advocating tax cuts on those economic actors that have benefitted from the post-2008 Fed is certainly defensibly libertarian, the flip side is that their success has vastly outperformed the large percentage of Americans who have not benefited from this age of financialization.

One of Carlson’s go-to examples illustrating the failures of the modern American economy is the growth of dollar stores. While some libertarians may dismiss Carlson’s critiques of the “ugliness” of dollar stores, the reality is that the dollar store boom did coincide with the post-2008 economy. As wages for American workers stagnated while inflationary pressures continued, dollar stores came to “reign supreme” in retail. As Austrian economists have noted, one of the secondary consequences of the fiat money system has been the pressure it applies to middle and low-income consumers to make lower-quality substitutions in their spending habits. From 2008 to 2020, dollar stores saw an 89.7 percent increase in their grocery business.

It would, of course, be mistaken to place monetary policy as the sole reason for the success of Carlson’s hated dollar stores. From personal experience, their smaller nature can make them more convenient for simple purchases than larger outlets and perhaps for some they serve a purpose closer to a suburban convenience store rather than a dehumanizing symbol of neoliberal conquest. Still, Carlson’s concern about what their growth means for average Americans is not without merit as an illustration of how Washington policymakers are ripping Americans off.

The real problem with Carlson’s economic views is not his willingness to be overly broad with the label “libertarian,” but the trap of embracing a form of economic denialism due to his understandable disillusionment of our failed economic expert class. While Carlson may find attempts to clarify the best labels to apply to the modern economic system as “boring conversations,” valid critiques of what exists now should not result in dismissing capitalism’s virtues.

Further, it is noteworthy that modern economic nationalists who delight in cheering on Carlson’s attacks on libertarians as a way of promoting their own interventionist dreams are just as blind as the worst “libertarian economist” on the real cancer of our economic system. As I noted earlier this year, American Compass, one of the institutions that has benefited from progressive deep pockets, managed to create an entire policy document without any meaningful reference to the “Federal Reserve” or “monetary policy,” even though it has a chapter dedicated to “financialization.” Carlson, to his credit, has shown more interest in that topic.

This is precisely why Austrian economists have an important role in the current world. While the economic ideas of Milton Friedman have some culpability in the creation of the global economic mess in which we find ourselves, Austrian economic theories bear no responsibility. While too many libertarians cheered on alleged policy victories such as “Reaganomics” or NAFTA, libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell joined with paleoconservatives in their concerns for the consequences these policies would have for the economy as a whole.

Tho Bishop is Editorial and Content Manager for the Mises Institute, and can assist with questions from the press. Prior to working for the Mises Institute, he served as Deputy Communications Director for the House Financial Services Committee. His articles have been featured in The Federalist, the Daily Caller, Business Insider, The Washington Times, and The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Tho Bishop | 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 Tucker Carlson is Not Entirely Wrong About “Libertarian Economics” appeared first on Granite Grok.

It feels like Electric Vehicle buyers get about as much information as COVID vaccine recipients, which is not much. Like the side effects of ownership. Loss of value, high insurance costs, pricey repairs for minor accident damage, loss of range in the cold of winter.

It’s not pretty.

 

Cold temperatures dramatically reduce an electric car’s range.

The colder it is, the more a car’s range will suffer.

18 popular EV models analyzed lost an average of ~30% of their range in freezing conditions.https://t.co/giOJfui1ps pic.twitter.com/i0dKvGty3j

— Brian Gitt (@BrianGitt) December 17, 2023

 

The cold affects fuel and combustion vehicles, but not anything like this, and when you need more fuel, it takes a few minutes, and off you go. EVs, even at superchargers, take from 15-30 minutes to many hours, depending on how much of your money you invested in the vehicle purchase by the look of it.

Add to this the odds – increased during winter – of long delays on highways surrounded by idling vehicles with no chargers in sight.

If you want an EV, there’s a lot to think about, not the least of which is that the emissions aren’t reduced; they are just offshored. You are not helping the planet, you are just feeding a false narrative. And you are welcome to it if you are spending your money, but that’s not how it is. From components to finished products, the government has meddled in the marketplace with other people’s money.

Add to this the increased pressure on the grid, which can or will drive up rates for everyone, and we’re all paying for this monumental mistake. So why not help your neighbors afford to heat their homes and just buy a conventional vehicle? You won’t regret it. It’ll last longer, be cheaper to fix, and get repaired faster, and when you get low on charge (fuel), there’s no shortage of places to “fill up.”

 

The post Are You “De-Ranged” Enough to Drive an EV in the Winter? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The CDC’s new model for public schools will be called community schools. In this model, public schools will offer mental health and medical services to students. This has already begun with the infusion of the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), which is SEL-Social and Emotional Learning.

What does this mean for students in a public school? They are now subjected to pseudo-psychology instead of learning how to read and write.

As schools begin shifting to this model, we are already finding serious problems:

1) Two young NH children were vaccinated this year even though their parents sent strict instructions that they did not want their children to receive the vaccine.

2) A parent in Maine was surprised to find out that his daughter was given a bag of Zoloft pills at the School-Based Health Clinics without his knowledge or consent.  (SBHC)  The side effects of Zoloft include suicidal thoughts. After addressing this with school administrators and withdrawing his daughter from the school, he was visited by Child Protective Services. Eventually cleared by CPS, many now question if this was retaliation.

3) Michael King from the Massachusetts Family Institute reported that a 16-year-old girl was implanted with a birth control device in her arm without her parent’s knowledge or consent.  The implant required the girl to undergo a medical procedure in order to place the implant in her arm. This was done at the SBHC.

4) Students in New Hampshire who’ve visited their school counselor have had their personal mental health information shared with vendors hired to report to the federal government on the MTSS-B.

If all of this wasn’t bad enough, now we have NH Republican Senators proposing legislation that allows school districts to contract with a healthcare provider, health system, or community partner to establish a school-based health center for the purpose of providing services to students beyond the scope of school nursing services.  Since when is it the goal of Republicans in the Senate to set up the CDC’s School Based Health Clinics?

This proposed legislation does include a provision that requires parental consent, but this does not guarantee parents will be notified or have to consent. It is possible they will ask parents to sign a blanket permission slip at the beginning of the school year without realizing that they are handing their children over for treatment they would not approve of. Parents are required to sign a lot of paperwork at the beginning of the school year. Some may believe that this would simply allow their children to be seen if they are running a fever or for a stomach ache.

According to the SBHC in Maine, they do not need parental consent to treat a child because they receive funding from the federal government.

How far can this go? In East Stroudsburg, PA, 6th-grade girls were forced to undergo a gynecological exam without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Some people are willing to go that far, believing parents should have no part in these medical decisions for their children.

Since hospitals struggle to keep hospitals staffed, does it make sense to pull staff from these medical facilities? Schools already provide nursing services to their students. Can you imagine requiring more of these medical professionals to staff these SBHCs?

There is no respect for parental authority by those who promote the CDC’s Community Schools. While this legislation includes parental consent, even with consent, mistakes have already happened in New Hampshire. When you remove parents from their children when receiving medical care, you can expect more of that.

It is shocking to see these sponsors on SB343: SPONSORS: Sen. Innis, Dist 7; Sen. Gray, Dist 6; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Murphy, Dist 16; Rep. Wolf, Merr. 7 It is important that you act now.

Contact the Republicans in The New Hampshire Senate and demand that they kill Senate Bill 343.  If you can, MAKE a PHONE CALL!

Call these Senators AND send them an email asking them to KILL SB343.
We do NOT want the CDC model in our public schools.

Carrie.Gendreau@leg.state.nh.us
Timothy.Lang@leg.state.nh.us
Jeb.Bradley@leg.state.nh.us
James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us
Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us
Ruth.Ward@leg.state.nh.us
Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us
Kevin.Avard@leg.state.nh.us
Sharon.Carson@leg.state.nh.us
Keith.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us
Howard.Pearl@leg.state.nh.us
Regina.Birdsell@leg.state.nh.us
Daryl.Abbas@leg.state.nh.us
William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us

 

 

 

 

The post NH’s Most Dangerous Bill This Year Comes from Republicans in the Senate appeared first on Granite Grok.