A recent ruling was issued by the New Hampshire Superior Court on state funding of public schools in New Hampshire. Legislators pride themselves on local control when it comes to decisions that should be made by local communities. But if more funding is required by the state, will that mean that they expect to have more of a say in what happens in your school?

Right now, there are state and federal laws that govern local public schools. But when considering legislation at the state level, elected representatives try hard to weigh the importance of local residents, board members, and school officials engaging in these important decisions and policies. A judge who shifts more of the funding to the state is essentially removing local control from those communities. What the state funds, they will want to control.

For instance, many schools have a policy that non-residents cannot speak at local school board meetings. They open up public comments for local residents only. Why not pass a law on the state level that allows for non-residents to speak? After all, their state and federal tax dollars are going to all public schools in the state.

State legislators hear from anyone who attends a public hearing. People can come from out of state to weigh in on proposed laws. Why should a resident paying taxes to all of the schools in New Hampshire be restricted from speaking at a school board meeting in a neighboring town?

There is already a call for accountability from state and federal officials. I would assume that will go further if the state must provide additional funding to local schools.

What will your property tax bill look like? Some will expect some relief, but will that happen? Or will school budgets increase due to the additional revenue from the state? My guess is local taxpayers will not see any significant relief in their local taxes. When COVID funds were distributed to local schools, did you see your property taxes decrease?

One thing is for sure: when you shift the funding to the state or federal level, expect to have less of a voice at school board meetings. Some may think they won something with this ruling, but time will tell who really benefits.

The post Less Local Control For Public Schools in New Hampshire? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Medical facemasks can’t stop a virus. Even Tony Fauci knew that before May of 2020—research before and after has confirmed it. Just ask the manufacturers. Masks also present some risk of harm, including, based on new peer-reviewed, journal-accepted research, increasing the odds of a COVID-19 infection.

Cambridge Epidemiology & Infection has accepted a research paper with the following summary.

We examined the association between face masks and risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 using cross-sectional data from 3,209 participants in a randomized trial of using glasses to reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Face mask use was based on participants’ response to the end-of-follow-up survey. We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 – 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 – 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.

Alternate title suggestions include, “The more you wear a facemask, the greater your odds of getting COVID-19.” Or, “Not Wearing Facemasks Reduced Chances of COVID-19 Infection by up to 40%.” (Related: Under Oath, Fauci Can’t Name A Single Study That Justified Mass-Masking).

Sensitivity analysis showed that when adjusting for differences in baseline risk over time, the risk of wearing a mask was less pronounced, with only a 4% (95% CI 1% to 7%) increased incidence of infection with COVID-19 for those wearing face mask almost always or always  compared to those wearing face masks never or almost never. Results from secondary outcomes were largely in the same direction, i.e. mask wearing was associated with an  increased relative risk of experiencing respiratory symptoms (1.04 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.07]),  while we found no clear association between mask wearing and notified COVID-19 cases.

There was no circumstance in which wearing a mask improved outcomes, which is significant. Long-term mask-wearing presents serious health risks that increase depending on the mask, and those inclined to continue using them even now lean toward N95 or K95-type masks. (Related: Certified Industrial Hygienist Stephen Petty’s Senate Testimony on Why Masks Don’t or Can’t Work.)

When Plymouth State University tried to mandate N95 masks all over their campus during the COVID-SCARE, we pointed out that the Feds require special training to use them effectively, and failing to do that negates any benefits – if there were any, to begin with, in that circumstance – and that wearing them come with side-effects.

Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed.

Plymouth would have, by law, been required to provide OSHA-certified training to all employees and, at least in theory, students. But no one followed the law while inventing new powers to suppress the rights protected by laws, including the Big Daddy parchment – the Constitution.

It seems safe to suggest that this research will get ignored, but it is there, and you are welcome to reference it when needed.

HT | Epoch Times

The post Researchers Find Medical Facemasks Increased Risk of COVID-19 Infection by Up to 40% appeared first on Granite Grok.

(Concord, NH Nov 29, 2023) New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL) applauds the decision of the NH Executive Council to reject Title X contracts that would have subsidized abortions. Today’s decision ensures that taxpayer dollars and the conscience of pro-life citizens are protected.

Despite the efforts of the abortion lobby, four of the five councilors stood firm, honoring the intent of the law passed in 2021 [0].

These funds in the past appear to have subsidized out-of-state abortion providers after NH denied funding in 2021, soon after in 2022, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England closed six centers, with 5 in Vermont and only 1 in NH.

Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.

As a public service, NHRTL makes available a list of affordable & free healthcare centers, including the over 70 federally-qualified healthcare sites, for the health of women, men, and their children on its website at nhrtl.org. These are in addition to expanded Medicaid & subsidized health plans, which means that most low-income individuals can now access full-service health care outside of the Title X program.

Jason Hennessey, President of NHRTL, praised the decision, saying: “The Executive Councilors who said no to funding abortion providers said yes to saving lives and money. Giving tax money to organizations that also lobby to legalize abortion all the way through birth is just too extreme.”

2021’s HB2, Section 91:36 states, “No state funds shall be awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services to a reproductive health care facility,” with a Medicaid exception.

Contact:
Jason Hennessey
New Hampshire Right to Life
(603) 230-8136
life@nhrtl.org
https://nhrtl.org

###

The post NH Executive Council Rejects Abortion Subsidies appeared first on Granite Grok.

Did you hear? Didn’t you hear? Koch is backing Nikki Haley! Did you hear? Did you hear? This, as far as I am concerned, proves that Nikki’s “tough talk” about the border is just that … TALK. Koch supports open borders because Koch believes that cheap labor is the path to economic prosperity.

Nikki is also taking a page out of the GOP’s failed playbook by talking about “entitlement reform” … which everyone knows is code for cutting future social security benefits:

Pledging to cut future social security benefits, even if you call it “entitlement reform,” is a proven path to LOSING. Nikki would not stand a chance in a general election against any Democrat, not even Biden.

GOP candidates should be talking about “defense spending reform.” We are approaching $1 TRILLION a year in defense spending. Russia does not spend even 10 percent of that, yet is kicking our ass in that proxy war known as the War-in-Ukraine … because we waste hundreds of billions on exotic weapons systems that, while mega-profitable for the military-industrial complex, are irrelevancies on the modern battlefield, while the Russians take the opposite approach:

One of the craziest revelations of the Ukraine War is that the US can’t produce as much ammunition as Russia, even though the US spends over $800B/year on defense, which is 10X Russia. American taxpayers must be getting royally ripped off by the military-industrial complex.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 20, 2023

The post Nikki Haley Would Lose In a Landslide appeared first on Granite Grok.