Thursday • May 9 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XIX
Manchester, N.H.
Many Of us sadly have elder relatives who suffer from various stages of memory loss or dementia. We see their pain as they struggle to recall names and events. We ensure that these precious souls do not injure themselves or others. We help them with decisions they can no longer make independently.
We love these people who guided us through our lives, and now they need guidance. This journey is the circle of life, but we do not need this circle of evolution in some facets of our lives. Business and government are two where we do not need people far beyond their prime who are entrenched simply because they have always been present. People like Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden are examples of such fixtures. They have invested a lifetime in what they call Public Service, but what I choose to title Public Absorption. They have built a powerful machine to ensure they stay in power, taking from those who unwittingly vote to keep them there. These folks are ageless parasites.
Joe Biden loves to preach about the plethora of experience and wisdom he has garnered in his fifty-plus years in Washington. Biden never had a real job, made anything, had employees, or lived within a budget. Joe Biden has spent a lifetime spending our hard-earned money on projects and causes he thinks are suitable for us. He rarely asked for our opinion, for he knew it would be the opposite of his, but that never stopped him. People like Joe, Mitch, Nancy, or Chuck are never wrong and love to point a finger at those who are. For the last three years, Joe has justified his existence and position by distracting and accusing others of wrongdoing or thinking. He is a master of gas lighting. For the last three years, one declaration permeates his message: Joe is correct, and Donald Trump and the Supreme Court are not. It is SCOTUS and Trump who have brought about desperate policies threatening American Democracy and freedom, and we must elect Biden to stand in the way of the existential threat to our existence.
Joe traveled to Florida, where he is about as popular as a gator in your backyard pool. Florida has had more than its share of illegal migrants, and the blame falls solely on Joe Biden. We all remember when Biden lashed out at Peter Doocy of FOX News, calling him a “One-Trick Pony.” Biden is becoming that pony. With the chaos at the border, the runaway inflation killing Bidenomics, two wars, and now civil unrest on campuses threatening Jewish students, Joe is playing one tune as he campaigns across America: Abortion.
Biden’s approval ratings are slipping across the spectrum, but alarmingly so with the young voters. With Democrat support softening with the Black and Brown communities, Biden cannot afford any drop in support with Millennials and Gen-Z. That is why he is beating the Abortion drum. He is in Florida to draw attention to restrictive rights favored by Trump and DeSantis. It is almost comical when Biden looks at the camera and says that Trump is wrong on the Abortion issue, and so is the Supreme Court. Joe Biden, the intellectual giant who cannot put two sentences together unless on a teleprompter and looks to Congresswoman Cortez for words of wisdom, is calling out our Supreme Court. Very rich for a man who is betting his reelection on the dismembered bodies of unwanted fetuses.
The post Joe Biden Is The Ultimate Legal Mastermind appeared first on Granite Grok.
Dear Goffstown voters: you don’t get to elect an extremist like Kelly Boyer to the Board of Selectman (whoopsie; so sorry; you changed Board of Selectmen to “Select Board”), and then complain about Goffstown having a problem with extremists: Does Hate Really Have No Home In Goffstown.
What’s that, you say? Boyer is not an extremist? While Boyer may be much more careful about what she posts to social media than other extremists in the New HampshireDemocratCommunist Party, she is an extremist nonetheless.
The LGBTQ+ flag represents the chemical castration of children, biological males playing on girls’ school sports teams, and teachers supplanting parents. So, yeah, I would call Boyer extreme. If you don’t, maybe it’s because the abnormal …the chemical castration of children, biological males playing on girls’ school sports teams, and teachers supplanting parents … has become normal in New Hampshire.
Credit where credit is due. Boyer is an actual political activist. And a good one. Not someone, like me, who just runs his mouth. Someone who actually puts in the long hours and hard work to effect change … of course, that “change” is the transformation of Goffstown into Wokestown.
Boyer uses your values against you … let’s make Goffstown a loving, inclusive, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah place. And it works … you elect her to that institution known in the bad, old patriarchal days as the Board of Selectmen, WHERE SHE CURRENTLY SITS AS VICE “CHAIR”, which emboldens extremists. From the recent post mentioned above:
Two conservatives recently ran for Library Board of Trustees in our local election. This really bothered and triggered another extreme leftist, who happens to be our Select Board Vice Chair’s wife, and she requested the candidates’ actual library cards from the library. After receiving them from the Library Director, she proceeded to display them (including their patron codes) publicly online in order to intimidate and call them out.
You cannot have it both ways, voters of GoffstownWokestown … you cannot elect a Woke-Communist to lead your town and then complain about Woke-Communism in your town. If you want to see the root of the problem, look in the mirror.
The post Dear Goffstown Voters … YOU Are The Problem appeared first on Granite Grok.
The United States of America is currently experiencing a total psychological takeover from a foreign country. That country is Russia.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the halls of the federal institutions in Washington, DC. US federal officials are obsessed with Russia. They cannot stop blaming everything on the Asian country. These US officials think it is a good idea to commit such ideological obsession. Nothing good can come of such a silly infatuation.
This was blatantly put on display last week when US federal lawmakers in Congress collectively waved small Ukrainian flags in a show of support for passing legislature aimed to continue funding for financial aid to the beleaguered European country. Many of these same lawmakers decry waving their own country’s flag. These people are totally corrupted and have sold out their own country.
In fact, Ukraine today is no longer a fully functioning state. It is an extension of the US government. In a twisted expression of geopolitical power, this is in no way in the real interests of US citizens. Yet, it is US citizens’ wealth that is being squeezed away and drained.
How is this happening? It is solely due to the deeply corrupted and compromised Biden cabal, which took power in 2020 in a coup that was given cover by the US election cycle. The Biden cabal utilized biomedical and race warfare to inflame national sentiment and distract the citizenry so that it could conduct an entirely corrupt and illegal electioneering campaign.
This was all smoke and mirrors to distract US citizens and the world from one stark reality: the Biden cabal, which is essentially the US Democrat Party, is fully controlled and operated by non-US interests. Mainly, it is controlled by Chinese, British, and European military intelligence forces.
This has increasingly become apparent over the years since Biden took office. His cabal’s use of the US intelligence, media, and federal legal apparatus to destroy political opposition and censure public conversations has been entirely totalitarian. Nothing about the Biden White House’s governing style is democratic whatsoever.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt states on the planet. What does this mean? Simply put, there is vast criminality, mostly in the forms of nepotism, embezzlement, bribery, and money laundering. For example, Ukrainian officials will take large portions of international aid money for themselves. Through various schemes and mechanisms, some of this money will be returned to the very politicians in the USA who provided the aid in the first place.
Under Joseph Biden’s administration, the USA has joined Ukraine as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. No internationally published corruption index will show this because most of them favor the US Democrats and the Washington establishment. They are not sophisticated enough to fully understand the corruption taking place.
In whose interest is is that the USA continues to fund Ukraine? Internationally, several groups have direct interests. Firstly, the European Union, especially the western countries like Spain, France, and Germany, benefit from creating a stronger political and economic divide between Russia and the EU. It allows the countries of the EU to compete economically within the single market with less external economic pressure, because Russians have less interest and ability to attempt to compete economically in the EU.
This divergence between Europe and Russia is enforced by the US military, which is providing most of the aid in the form of military equipment and personnel support. The entire US military economy is able to continue to generate profits because this conflict with Ukraine exists. They are too myopic to see any other potential avenue for profits. The US military and its economies gain at the expense of US citizens.
China and the entire group of countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, politically known as BRICS, gained as well. They gain because the US is invested and distracted by the Ukraine war. The US cannot focus on so many things simultaneously, even though it pretends to. This gives enormous leeway for China and many other countries to operate. Politically, it also allows China to play neutral and take the most morally superior position while the USA sinks into a clearly amoral position of funding war— an unpopular notion.
Russia gains because this is a war that it can only win. On nearly every level, it is impossible for Russia to lose. It is too large to be defeated by Ukraine. It is too easy for Russia to control the conflict. And despite Washington’s propaganda, Russia does not need to or want to entirely annex all of Ukraine. Russia gains as long as the conflict persists because its military economies also benefit from war. Furthermore, the entire conflict puts Russia in a favorable international situation, as many countries around the world see that NATO has bullied Russia into the situation. Only the Western political elite have convinced themselves of Russia’s malfeasance. Most other intelligent people around the world can see the real role of NATO and the logic of Russia’s actions.
US citizens are the only ones who lose. US citizens’ wealth decreases every time the US government sends funds to Ukraine. Thst wealth is transferred to Ukranian oligarchs, which is in turn spread over the Eastern European region and the Mediterraneans where those individuals operate. The wealth is transferred to the US military economy, where US defense corporations and military community members gain. The wealth is transferred through inflation when the money is created rather than drawn from the tax base, and US citizens lose their purchasing power. Finally, US citizen’s voice is squelched, as any attempt to alter the situation is nullified by an oppressive and totalitarian federal government.
It is a disgusting situation. The Biden cabal is committing many crimes against its own people in order to enrich itself, even while taking government salaries for the positions its members fill during the administration.
These people in the US Democratic party and in the US Washington establishment who are enforcing this reality on the planet and in the USA are despicable people. They are totally ideologically corrupt, and they are protected by the forces of all of the people who benefit— essentially almost everyone else on the planet.
There are better ways to manage and check the growth of the USA, which is the goal in attempting to build a multipolar world. This is not the best way. It is far from the best way. The people who are complicit in allowing the situation to persist are deserving of a great punishment and a great reckoning.
The post Night Cap: The Psychological Submission of the USA appeared first on Granite Grok.
Psychology is a “science” that studies human behavior but is itself morally bankrupt. That is, psychology is unable to scientifically define normality. It can’t. “Normal” depends on what the society (through “norms”) or the patient views as morally correct.
This limitation of psychological study is apparent when addressing transgenderism, until recently labeled a mental illness (“gender dysphoria”) by psychology. Modern textbooks on transgender (and other paraphilic) disorders observe that they arise from “adverse childhood experiences” (ACEs): “Any event sufficiently stressful to threaten a fragile ego” (Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, 8th edition, Mary C. Townsend, 2015, p. 615). But here we face a conundrum: the textbook relates that such people are “unable to use coping mechanisms effectively” and become either “adaptive” (“urges are suppressed and not acted upon”) or “maladaptive” (“urges or behaviors cause significant distress or interfere with social, occupational or other important areas of functioning”). But if society alters its mores such that a person is rewarded for his paraphilic condition in self, occupation, or even a run for public office, then this textbook is reversed, and what was viewed as adaptive becomes toxic, and what was termed maladaptive is healthy.
Drug addiction also is linked directly to ACEs. Is the “cure” for the disease of addiction found in affirmation or in “correction”? In encouraging more heroin abuse or in helping people into recovery? We must ask this question of transgenderism with the utmost compassion and introspection. If the behavior is “normal,” there is no “condition” to address. America’s Left has imposed the conclusion of normalcy without critically considering the effect on the patient or others.
What of people who suffer from delusions of grandeur, a common presentation of which is the quite sincere belief that they are Jesus Christ? Shall we address them as Messiah or instead gently correct them to bring them back down to earth (reality), under the care of a talented professional? Crucifixion would seem a harsh therapy (however affirming). Yet the surgeries being performed on people with species or gender dysphoria are quite horrifying in their mutilation of the human body.
In Vermont, those surgeries are now available to schoolchildren!
Those affirmed in species dysphoria (the belief that one is of a different species) will become parents and cause ACEs for their children — doubtless, it is traumatizing for children to grow up with a father who “identifies” as a lizard or a mother who “feels” she is a wolf trapped in a womanly form. This guarantees an expanding pool of victims, perpetuating the vicious cycle of child victimization that causes these emotional traumas.
Additional child victims of transgender “reorientation” by society are the girls who have brought a complaint regarding the unfair advantage gained by male high school athletes. There are numerous effects on others from “affirming” dysphorias.
The rush to enable these mental illnesses and to instruct children that they can surgically alter their physiology at whim (“liberating” them?) is indeed dramatically altering what is normal. The next step is to normalize species dysphoria and allow children to be surgically altered in any and all manifestations of physicality they demand. By what logic can gender dysphoria be approved and species dysphoria rejected?
In a Georgia school, a young man was outraged that the school “singled him out” in the cafeteria and removed him…for wearing a penguin costume. In a video, he states:
Have you seen the Georgia laws for discrimination? You can’t discriminate against someone by who they are. I identify as a penguin, and this is me as a penguin. This isn’t a hood. This is my penguin head. You can’t tell me not to be a penguin, cause, I mean, I was born a penguin and honestly that’s against the law to discriminate and if you go through with this I will let the ACLU know and they will send their people[.]
Teachers and administrators are trying to cope with the increasing permutations of mental illness in young students. Meanwhile, progressive hospitals are quick to offer medical, pharmaceutical, therapeutic, and other surgeries to encourage these same children. At the University of Vermont Medical Center Transgender Youth Program, “a multi-disciplinary team of physicians and mental health providers” explains that gender identity for children is not a choice but that radically and irrevocably altering their genitals and hormones is a “normal” option:
At the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital, we believe that all people, including children and teens, should be allowed to live their lives in their preferred gender. Gender identity is not a choice, and it cannot be changed through treatment[.] …
We provide the full spectrum of care, from simple observation and guidance to hormone suppression and gender-affirming hormonal therapy for children of all ages[.] …
We require that all our patients are in active mental health therapy as we feel this is a vital part of any gender exploration journey[.] …
We can provide a referral to the reproductive endocrinology team at the UVM Medical Center to discuss fertility preservation options if it is desired by the patient and family, and if the patient is at pubertal age[.] …
When the right time comes, planning for having children is a part of life. Like everyone else, a transgender person has choices. Once on pubertal suppressive treatment and/or gender affirming hormones, the likelihood of being able to have biological offspring decreases significantly or is not possible at all. It’s good to plan ahead.
Just as suboxone is offered as the lifetime cure-all for substance abuse, the pharmaceutical industry offers lifetime drug therapies for these children at government expense. Most people do not become dependent on suboxone until adulthood. In Vermont, the progressives are connecting pharmaceutical companies to their customers at a much earlier age through lifetime hormone therapies, sometimes without parental consent.
History will reflect that this transgender experiment on Vermont’s children is as insane as the eugenics movement, which in Vermont led to the sterilization of people “for the public good.” Or perhaps the better parallel was the period when lobotomies were in vogue, before society realized how ridiculous that acclaimed “solution” was. America champions the cause of women from foreign cultures who endure societal genital mutilation but somehow fails to see the reflection of that mutilation in today’s U.S. hospitals.
Mutilating the genitals of young children will surely one day lead to a cascade of lawsuits against the State of Vermont. These sex surgeries are as irreversible as lobotomies. In a time when municipalities may hesitate to install new playground equipment for fears of liability, these hospitals are unconcerned with future reimbursement of these children when they regret these rash procedures in the future — or when society reverts to the old normal. Perhaps these hospitals and government agencies should set aside a financial reserve, just in case some of these young boys regret permitting physicians to alter their “penis tissue” “to construct a vaginal cavity between the rectum and urethra … with the depth and appearance of a biologically developed vagina.”
That just does not sound normal at any age.
(September 16, 2019)
Postscript:
“A new systematic review of international clinical guidelines for children with gender dysphoria found a “lack of evidence” for transition treatments for minors and also accused the medical authorities who recommend such treatments of engaging in “circular referencing,” or exclusively citing one another’s recommendations to create an artificial expert consensus, according to reporting from Christina Buttons. The study, commissioned by Dr. Hilary Cass as part of her evidence review for the U.K. National Health Service, found that the main organizations that have endorsed “gender-affirming care” for children—including the Endocrine Society, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Academy of Pediatrics—consistently cited one another’s guidelines and conclusions without conducting any independent research, thus creating the illusion of widespread professional and scientific agreement on the safety and efficacy of these treatments.”
John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.The post Transgender Surgery Is the Lobotomy of the 21st Century appeared first on Granite Grok.
A. J. Kierstead and Dexter Tarbox discuss Defend the Guard and NH HB229, which the New Hampshire Senate might send to Interim Study. People like NH Rep. Tom Mannion, and other liberty lovers are, doing their part to make sure this gets done!
‘Grok More Podcasts here!
The post New Hampshire Needs to Pass #DefendTheGuard appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Internet has eroded institutional control over what ordinary people see as “news.” Corporate media are still thieves, but not as they used to be, while locals have been obliterated in print and online. Many struggle to keep the dream alive, but with significantly reduced staff and declining coverage, and now wealthy progressive foundations have come to the rescue.
The problem?
Since 2005, approximately 2,200 local newspapers have closed, resulting in 20 percent of Americans living in “news deserts” with little to no reliable coverage of important local events. Press Forward seeks to reverse the dramatic decline in local news that has coincided with an increasingly divided America and weakening trust in institutions.
The Solution?
A coalition of 22 donors today announced Press Forward, a national initiative to strengthen communities and democracy by supporting local news and information with an infusion of more than a half-billion dollars over the next five years. Press Forward will enhance local journalism at an unprecedented level to re-center local news as a force for community cohesion; support new models and solutions that are ready to scale; and close longstanding inequities in journalism coverage and practice.
The funding.
Initial Press Forward partners are The Archewell Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Community Foundation for the Land of Lincoln, Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, Mary W. Graham, Glen Nelson Center at American Public Media Group, Heising-Simons Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Joyce Foundation, KFF, Knight Foundation, The Lenfest Institute for Journalism, Lumina Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Outrider Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Skyline Foundation, and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
These groups have promised 500 million in grants to start (for which outlets like InDepth NH, among others, will apply) to prop up favorable venues that can fill search engine results with echoes from the correct chamber. It sounds like the David Brock thing – fake local news/public interest websites peddling news, sports, and “opinion” that press the progressive message. If those are still around, maybe they can apply too.
And it is, of course, about preserving Democracy and countering misinformation.
Under the cover of supporting news gathering and reporting by underserved populations, most of whom will suffer from the success of the reporting.
And yes, I wish we had easy access to similar grants to push back from our “side.” One of the Grok’s missions, when my job disappeared last year, was to do more day-to-day reporting, which is constricted by raising donations, for which I am forever grateful, but I’m not good at it, so it hasn’t freed me up to do any of that. I still have to work part-time elsewhere, which is fine. I like working, but it keeps us from pressing forward (hee hee) with some of our goals.
We lose a step here and there, while deep pockets on the Left fund portals labeled as local news to leverage people’s better opinion of “local news'” to push the progressive agenda.
Press Forward, indeed!
The post Liberal Foundations Offer 500 Million In Grants to “Revitalize Local News” (You Mean Progressive Echo Chambers, Yes?) appeared first on Granite Grok.
Comparisons only capture the ears of the curious. Amid all this social, economic, and cultural turmoil, it would surely be beneficial if curiosity could return. This quality is very much in demand since America is being attacked with the enemy’s new weapons of equality and equity.
This new warfare astounds simply from the aspect of its ease and successful implementation, and now without any injury or loss of life! Such success was likely dependent upon the prelim of a patient conditioning program. Without getting too detailed, all this roughly began around the dawning of the twentieth century. The central distribution point was academia with its purpose to infiltrate nationally. Graduating the like minded, many remained in the education field while others dispersed throughout the many sectors of our economy and yes, governments!
Not to get political, but it’s a necessary element that fuels today’s affecting headlines. Trump’s 2015 entry upset their long march through the institutions,’ as the Red Chinese say. At first, his entry was comical, but suddenly, Trump became President. All their laughter ceased. What has happened since, most notably in 2020 and now during this campaign season, or should I say ‘attack season,’ has been to protect their slow grind through all that is still America but, most importantly, to keep Trump from obtaining Presidential power ever again, for he is their only credible threat!
This confrontation is very much a psychological affair in that all these drastic societal and cultural reversals and/or eliminations are being played out so as to keep the masses unbalanced and misdirected while the brunt of their efforts centers upon their last obstacle!
For whatever reason, they might have erred by refocusing America’s attention on one issue that also acts as a reliable public safeguard: our unalienable Second Amendment. Incredibly, Biden’s insistence that our Constitutional rights, listed as The Bill of Rights, “are not absolute” might be an overstep, or in this case, an attention-getter when connecting with one uncomfortable fact: Red China!
This may only point to a possibility rather than a probability yet throughout Biden’s entire time in public service, his record is at least murky and with many question marks. Thus, it may not surprise as recent information has revealed to the public about unknown business dealings of our President, his family, and associates with our foreign adversaries. At the very least, this should cause some serious questioning concerning Biden’s real motives and overall allegiance to our Country. So, when he decides to attack everyone’s unalienable right to self-defense, it’s not a far reach to wonder just how Red China would welcome the knowing that no longer would there be “a gun behind every blade of grass.” This Constitutional right of the people, to be armed, acted as a deterrent causing that response from Admiral Yamamoto when asked why he didn’t continue on to our West Coast after attacking Pearl Harbor.
Also, such an airing of this Congressional investigation, which to the public may suggest the unthinkable, casts a dim shadow over Biden’s concern for public safety as his reason for disarming our people. Even the modern public fable that it was originally written for hunting purposes attempts to downplay the Founder’s concern for the public’s protection against governmental growth!
Today’s circus in the courts, no matter which side of the aisle one may prefer, is an outright threat to our Constitutional Republic. This abuse of our judicial system against a citizen’s right to run for office defines today’s new warfare. While this is temporarily viewed as a partisan effort, it never-the –less is an attack upon every American! The only catch is that this won’t become obvious until it’s too late! Biden’s overreach exemplifies Red China’s preference for a peaceful takeover. As stated, this is merely a possibility, but it’s eerie how it all connects with such a positive result for Red China. As this courtroom drama unfolds, the enemy has obviously gained influence within our prosecutorial and judicial arms of justice. Lady Justice is blind, but our people can ill afford to look away. And to borrow a quote, “This isn’t a joke!”
The post Maybe One Last Election appeared first on Granite Grok.
The next generation of DemocratsCommunists are moving on up in New Hampshire. One such Communist is Angela Brennan, running to replace her comrade, Becky “The Red” Whitley, who is moving on up to run for Congress in the 2nd-CD.
It is pretty common knowledge that “Blaine Amendments” in State Constitutions (enacted by States in the late 19th century (when Protestantism was still being taught in public schools) to discriminate against Catholics) violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and therefore are unenforceable. For example:
The first major blow to Blaine Amendments came in June 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that the federal Constitution forbids states from excluding families and schools from educational choice programs based on their religious status. The U.S. Constitution, wrote Chief Justice Roberts for a majority of the Court, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are members of the community too, and their exclusion from [Montana’s] scholarship program here is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.” The Supreme Court’s holding was clear and unambiguous—and it applies to every state: While a “State need not subsidize private education[,] . . . once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
The second blow to Blaine Amendments came two years later when the Supreme Court ruled in Carson v. Makin that states may not prohibit families that participate in educational choice programs from selecting schools that provide religious instruction. The Court held that such programs must be neutral regarding religion and allow parents to pick the school that works best for their children. Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the Court’s majority, held that Maine “violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment” when it prohibits parents from choosing religious educational options in a school choice program.
Yet here is Angela Brennan disseminating the FALSEHOOD that New Hampshire’s Blaine Amendment remains operative:
The question is: IS COMRADE BRENNAN A CONSTITUTIONAL KNOW-NOTHING OR A LIAR? The question that does not need to be asked is whether Comrade Brennan is a RELIGIOUS-BIGOT … she clearly is.
The post Angela Brennan (Candidate For Senate District 15) … Constitutional Know-Nothing, Or A Liar? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Any day now, we’re going to hear about a new federal program to help younger kids become bilingual. This is so they’ll be able to understand what their illegal alien child rapist is saying while they are being abused.
They are already being groomed so that part is already paid for locally through the school budget. And we’re covering the cost to transport them, process them (when that happens), and for criminal justice to know who they are and release them into (or back into ) the homeland. While the children are paying a different price.
The moment of this alleged child rapist’s arrest while we were with ICE Boston. He was their fourth alleged child rapist arrest of the morning.
All had been released by local jurisdictions who refused to cooperate with ICE. pic.twitter.com/JYEVxWbchi— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 16, 2024
Given these are all known predators here illegally, handled by the system but left to roam free, I’m curious as to why they’ve been arrested (publicly). Did the open borders, sanctuary city state Dems need a photo-op (look we’re hard in illegal immigration!)? Did the predators exceed their bag limit? And how soon before they are out on the street to find new targets, possibly even closer to our homes here in New Hampshire?
Oh, and what about all the other criminals wandering around?
No wonder even Democrats are getting sick of this crap.
The post Foreign Born Predators: Coming Soon to a Child Near You … appeared first on Granite Grok.
The urgency for transparency in using Nashua taxpayers’ hard-earned money is not just important; it’s paramount. As a state that prides itself on transparency, New Hampshire citizens should demand openness and accountability, particularly for publicly funded discretionary projects.
For instance, Nashua City’s Performing Arts Center project has already surpassed its budget, making the need for transparency even more pressing. Where is the money going? How much is coming back to the City? Is there waste or fraud? Is everything on the up and up? These are questions that should concern us all.
When elected and appointed officials impede access to information about what is happening, something is amuck.
Under the leadership of Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess, a disturbing trend of misrepresentations and obfuscation has emerged among the mayor and other top City officials. This is not just a matter of miscommunication; it’s a betrayal of citizens’ trust in certain of their elected representatives and appointed officials. The pattern is particularly troubling regarding the peculiar routing of millions of taxpayer dollars diverted from infrastructure and public safety projects to fund the discretionary Performing Arts Center, which appears to be the mayor’s pet project.
Mayor Donchess’ director of economic development, Tim Cummings, orchestrated secretive meetings to keep the public in the dark about the project’s complex financial structure, which has taken on the characteristics of a “shell game.” Suppose the funding for the Performing Arts project was transparent and accountable. Wouldn’t you expect the responsible officials to invite public inspection and not hinder public access and commentary by trickery?
It’s not just a matter of trust but of our collective responsibility as citizens to ensure that our tax dollars are used wisely and transparently. We have the power to demand answers, and we must use it.
Now, the NH Court must decide if this project’s meeting and records generated in the shadows can be seen in the sun. Should hearings on the expenditure of public funds be open to the public? It came to that!
On April 10-12, 2024, Nashua Superior Court held the last three days of a six-day Right to Know (RTK) Trial, Laurie Ortolano v City of Nashua and the 201 Main St. Corps. The Trial was all about public meetings and records contained within Director Cumming’s Economic Development Office (EDO).
The lawsuit challenged Director Cummings’s denial of noticing meetings and posting minutes per the law for the various commissions, committees, and boards under his office’s responsibility. While under oath, Mr. Cummings hesitantly acknowledged that his office oversees several City Committees and boards. However, when questioned on the two shell corporations (201 Main Street Corps) formed to accept federal money for the Performing Arts Center, Mr. Cummings claimed the 201 Main Street Corps were not under his department’s oversight. His statement proved to be false.
The City paid the legal expenses and fees to create these nonprofit public corporations to accept federal money. Because these corporations were pitched to the Board of Aldermen as public nonprofits, there is cause to believe that they were subject to the right-to-know NH RSA 91-A law. The structure presented by the City Attorney did not depict these Corporations as autonomous entities, separate from the City.
Mayor Donchess and his Corporation Counsel, Steven Bolton, failed to clarify the function of the corporations, and they appear to have done so to evade NH RSA 91-A. This pattern of denial continued for almost a year until Ortolano filed a right-to-know lawsuit, asking that the “City” manufactured agencies to advance the Performing Arts Center identify their public body/public agency status and produce the records they contain. She argued all of these meetings and records should be public.
I, Laurie Ortolano, have been to Court with the City too many times, seeking the truth and leaving without it. The April Trial reached a pinnacle of deception, and when the dust settled, so didn’t some of the deceptions.
I wanted to understand the City’s process for handling my right-to-know requests. I could not get a consistent and clear answer from Nashua City Attorney Leonard or Director of Administration Cummings. Attorney Leonard applied this blanket statement to many of my questions, “We comply with RSA 91-A.” You can see Leonard’s repeated statement as an overgeneralized and misleading response. Her actions seemed to diverge from compliance as prescribed by law.
Director Cummings and Attorney Leonard expounded on the stand that the 201 Main St. Corps created by the City as public corporations were not public bodies or agencies of the City. Therefore, the City was not responsible under the RTK law for noticing meetings for public attendance and posting their minutes. So, why did the City officials create them?
Because Mayor Donchess acted as if the 201 Main Street Corps were not City Corporations, his counsel argued that Corporations needed separate legal representation at the Trial. The City Attorney objected to questioning how these corporations involved with the Performance Art Center were structured, who structured them, and the purpose for this entangled condition. Now, five defense attorneys opposed one self-represented person.
Counsel for the Corporations specified that the City did not guide its hand-picked Board of Directors regarding governance or municipal law requirements, even though these Board members would be responsible for more than $25 million in taxpayer money to build the Performing Arts Center. So, we have a statement from a paid attorney that a non-taxpayer enterprise can run a taxpayer-funded entity without accountability and spend taxpayer money. The difficulty with the argument was that there was no evidence that the entities were untethered from the city.
Most people have seen how the blame game plays out. If someone is caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they blame someone else for making the cookies tempting. In roughly this way, the Trial became a finger-pointing game of villainizing the victims harmed by the Mayor’s non-disclosure practices. For example, for 20 months, the City, under Mayor Donchess, would not budge on a refusal to disclose who was responsible for notices and records for meetings and records and financial decisions recorded in documents relevant to the Performing Arts Center. As I raised questions, the mayor’s entourage villainized me and made themselves sound like the victims of their indiscretions and fiction.
The City claimed no responsibility for administrative oversight of the 201 Main Street Corps meetings where public funds were allocated and how they would be managed. Without realizing it, they declared themselves fiscally incompetent. The facts and evidence showed that the ” We know nothing (but control everything)” position was contradictory and fallacious but typical of positions the City previously took on right-to-know issues, such as attorney Leonard’s redundant ambiguous assertion, “We comply with RSA 91-A.”
The following exposed the Big Lie:
City-orchestrated lies flowed free until mid-afternoon on the last day of the April trial. At that time, Mr. Cummings whistled a new tune. He seemed to understand that an avalanche of evidence against his false statements made it difficult to continue concealing the trickery and deceptions in the make-believe independent corporation game he and the mayor were playing. The 201 Main Street Corps associated with the Performing Arts Center were the City’s alter ego in advancing the Performing Arts Center agenda.
Mr. Cummings made a 180-degree change and negated his denial by admitting that noticing and posting meetings/minutes was his responsibility. Why he wouldn’t admit to something likely in his job description bewilders.
Mr. Cummings did not acknowledge that the Corporations were under the City’s control and management but that the City was the third-party vendor to post notices and meeting records on the City’s website. Ms. Leonard identified under oath that the City entered into a third-party contract late last year to serve as their meeting website (this was not disclosed to the public).
The city took three years to write this contract. The pussyfooting had ended. Why all the deception? A Court decision that the Corporations are public bodies or public agencies of the City could open challenges to the legality of the Corporation’s structure and potential misuse of public funds.
No shenanigans were necessary in this matter. The Corporate structure would not have been up for review if the City had just owned its responsibility as a third party to notice and post meetings/minutes. However, the easy way does not appear to be the Donchess way. Once he starts on one track, he continues.
I’ve lost count of the prevarications and dissimulations from Nashua city officials and agents. I am surprised when I hear something truthful. That’s a sad testament to our times but one I hope will start changing.
Fairness is a prelude to truth and trust, which are preludes to cooperation. Transparency weaves through this process, as it must be for people to pull together and work together. This basic human need is making a comeback. The 2023 word of the year is authenticity. However, those who practice derision and promote discord are not to be underestimated. They are like “bad pennies that keep coming back.”
Does truth matter in Court? Not of you listened to days of testimony by Mr. Cummings. The Courts provide an opportunity for a just result, but there are no guarantees. Exposing fiction and using some common sense, however, helps spur justice.
To all who read this, what do you think?
The post Taxpayers Left in the Dark on Performing Arts Funds appeared first on Granite Grok.
A few years ago, Governor Sununu got a whiff of some Federal Wind Money up his skirt, and New Hampshire’s been fondling the idea ever since. But much bluer states with much bluer governors have decided that there’s no way to get there from here )and Bidenomics is partly to blame).
The next time some proglodyte tells you inflation isn’t as bad as “some people” say, don’t open with food prices or gas. Use wind. Inflation and material costs are making it impossible for the developers to move forward, but the deals they want would bankrupt ratepayers and cost billions in subsidies and tax credits. Even tax and spend states like New Jersey, and Maryland are shuddering at the price tag to move forward. A problem the wind idiots in New York have come to discover isn’t going away and cannot be justified.
New York’s signature offshore wind projects meant to boost confidence in the industry are being scrapped, a major hit to the industry in the state and the nation.
The decision is another setback to New York’s aspirations to achieve 70 percent renewable energy by 2030 and be a hub for the nascent industry in the United States. It will also be another challenge for President Joe Biden’s already likely out-of-reach 30 gigawatt goal for offshore wind by 2030.
Wind isn’t off the table, but as we reported previously, it’ll take some political capital, by which we mean politicians’ commitment to screwing ratepayers to get signature projects (intended to meet meaningless emissions reduction targets) back on track.
The newly-contracted projects are also expected to increase utility rates in the state. Residential electricity rates are expected to jump by $6.84 per month, commercial rates will increase by $58.73 per month, and monthly industrial rates will rise by $513.22, according to E&E News.
As I noted in the linked piece, these are lowball numbers. Given the trajectory of the economy, the industry, and global suppliers, these rates won’t survive construction, let alone completion. Ratepayers in Maryland (and New Jersey, where the Gov. is still trying to make wind happen) are going to get fiscally raped. It’s going to become difficult to impossible to do business there, which means price hikes to stay in business on top of the already rising prices.
The rising cost of offshore has had some positive effects.
In North Carolina, the latest long-term energy plan from Duke Energy drops offshore wind entirely in favor of nuclear, solar, and onshore wind. Furthermore, Duke has committed to only close any existing power plants once replacements are in operation, an idea that other states should follow. Two new offshore wind lease areas in the Gulf of Mexico failed to attract a bid. Vineyard Wind off Nantucket has begun construction but faces three unresolved lawsuits.
Nuclear has gained favor, but only because the not-so-green energy revolution has driven costs so high that it is not affordable by comparison. We could make Nuclear more affordable if the powers that want us to live in the dark rolled back some of the regulatory burdens enacted, not out of safety but to kneecap the industry, which they did.
It’s nuts how the all-electric-crazies could get a lot closer to their fantasy sooner, but that the easiest way to get there is a boogeyman (nuclear) they’ve been scaremongering for nearly fifty years. But here in New Hampshire, they are still chasing an offshore wind project that only becomes viable (to the vendor) if the states involved (ME, NH, Maybe MA) agree to rape ratepayers for the privilege.
I hope that’s not the plan because none of the factors causing Blue states to bail on Offshore wind are going away anytime soon.
The post Bidenomics vs. Offshore Wind: NY Latest State to Scrap Projects, Will NH Listen? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Apologies for the delayed announcement. I started it but then got sidetracked. It happens. But we posted the comments, and you voted, and this week’s winner is Ian Underwood.
Ian won the first week we began this way back in February, if I remember correctly (I know it was Ian, it’s the month I’m not sure about). He consistently provides excellent comments, so we sometimes have to exclude him from consideration because, as one commenter observed many months ago, he’d win every week. Well, you picked him this time, so congrats to Ian. I’m not sure what I sent you last time, but send me an email, and we’ll get you something different.
Collcat and Laura Condon tied for second.
Here’s Ian’s winning comment.
Ian Underwood
Rights, or Permissions?
How about consent — which essentially reduces to the Golden Rule — as a shared value upon which to base both society and government? According to the Declaration of Independence, that’s the ideal upon which the need to form a new country is based.
Here are the things I don’t want anyone else to be able to do to me. Therefore, I agree to be punished if I get caught trying to do them to anyone else.‘
That captures all of the things that should be crimes (like murder, assault, and theft), without including the things that shouldn’t be (like smoking pot or paying for sex or gambling). And it eliminates using government as a tool for redistributing wealth.
Or how about Bastiat’s description of government as ‘nothing more than organized self-defense’?
These are the opposite of chaos.
What we have nowis chaos — a situation where 51% of the voters can force their preferences on the other 49% at the point of a gun; where 51% of the voters can treat the other 49% as ATMs, and so on; where every election feels like it could spell the end of the world as we know it, because a handful of voters in the middle could turn everything upside-down overnight.
The post Comment of the Week Winner: Ian Underwood appeared first on Granite Grok.
While Amil Imani’s policy suggestions may make sense from an Iranian-American viewpoint, they make NO sense from an American-American viewpoint. America has been following policies aligned with his suggestions for longer than most Americans have been alive.
America backed the principal opponent of the “[t]he religious fanatics steering the Islamic Republic” during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussien, for eight years. Our ally killed, on the order of half a million Iranians. That wasn’t enough to topple the mullahs, so we threw him under the bus and switched our allegiance to the House of Saud, who have spent $100 billion spreading their version of Islam, Salafism, around the world.
We want to thank Kevin Tyson for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Two Gulf Wars later have left the region with Iran as the principal regional power and Iraq as their vassal, at the cost of several trillion dollars and millions of lives. As our twenty-year-long experience of leading the Afghans from the Taliban to the Taliban amply demonstrates, the uniparty’s foreign policy consistently places American interests last, if they are considered at all.
It’s time for Americans to focus on America and let the rest of the world solve their problems on their own.
The post It’s Time for Americans to Focus on America appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Honorable Supreme Court of N.H. is soliciting amicus briefs or memoranda on the issue of Standing in the Richard v. Sununu et al. case number 2023-0097. I offer the following memoranda in support of the Appellant’s position on Standing.
We want to thank Daniel RIchard for this Contribution (original in PDF here) – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Appellant has Standing under State and Federal law because he is a Citizen of the State of New Hampshire, an inhabitant of Auburn (Part I, Art. 11, Part II, Art. 30) and a tax payer (Part I, Art. 12) therefore, he has an a constitutionally protected right to vote for state and federal offices under the Constitution of New Hampshire (Const. of N.H.) Part I, Art. 11. and Art. 12 (1784) and Article 1. Section 2. (1788), and the Seventeenth Amendment (1913) to the Constitution of the United States of America (U.S. Const.).
The Const. of N.H. Bill of Rights Part I, Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 8, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 14, Art. 15, and Art. 20. All provide the authority for the Appellant to bring this civil and criminal complaint:
“An Act relating to Attornies” passed February 17, 1791 “that the plaintiff or defendant in any cause, prosecution or suit, being a citizen of this State, may appear, plead, pursue or defend, in his proper person, or by such other citizen of this state, being of good reputable character and behavior, as he may engage and employ, whether the person so employed be admitted as an attorney at law, or not. Page 100-101 of the laws of 1805,
“…This suit was brought by the petitioner as a “citizen, elector and taxpayer” of the state…” [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)].
The last article on the Const. of N.H. Part II, Article 101 … “declares that this form of Government shall be enrolled on parchment … “and be part of the laws of the land.” Blacks Law 4th edition defines the law of the land as:
Due process of law (q.v.). By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and render judgment only after trial. Duppy v. Tedor, a 204 La. 560, 15 So.2d 886, 891. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Rich Hill Coal Co. v. Bra-shore, 334 Pa. 449, 7 A.2d 302, 316; …
Both constitutions, state and federal, (Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11; Part II, Art. 5, and Art. 32, (1792); and U.S. Const. (1788) Article 1. Section 4) proscribe that the N.H. legislature shall establish the time, place, and manner in which all elections in the State of N.H. shall be conducted. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)], Moore v. Harper et al. (2023).
The N.H. legislature is defined by the Const. of N.H. Part II, [Art.] 2 [Legislature, How Constituted.] The Supreme Legislative Power, within this State, shall be vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, each of which shall have a negative on the other (June 2, 1784). As the constitutionality of the N.H. Legislature actions affecting the Appellant’s federal rights and the federal election process is in question, the recent Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) decision is now binding precedent on this Court.
“A state legislature’s “exercise of … authority” under the Elections Clause, we held, “must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Smiley, 285 U. S., at 367. Nowhere in the Federal Constitution could we find “provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.” Id. at 368, Pg. 15… [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)], (Moore v. Harper, et al. (2023).
The Appellant has standing, as he stated in his complaint that the Defendants have improperly exercised undelegated powers, by establishing colorable statutes to control all local, state, and federal elections, in manner prohibited by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15, and Part II, Art. 100; and Article 1. Section 4. which has disenfranchised the Appellant and improperly diluted his vote by the state’s passage and use of the following colorable state election statutes.
The statutory election laws schemes complained of, namely NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657, enforced as law by the Defendants, has unconstitutionally amended or altered the election law provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 11, Part II. Art. 32, and Article 1. Section 2 without the consent of the inhabitants, in direct disregard and violation of the mandatory procedural due process requirements of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15 and is prohibited by Part II. Art. 5 as follows: “That clause, which confers upon the ‘general court’ the authority ‘to make laws’, provides at the same time that they must not be ‘repugnant or contrary to the constitution….’” Id. 210, Merrill v. Sherburne, (1818) and Part II, Art. 100, and also prohibited by Article 1. Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)).
The Defendants enactment and or enforcement of such colorable state election laws in a manner not provided for by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11 and Article 1. Section 4 of the U.S. Const. is prohibited by the due process clause of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 12, and Art. 15; and such state legislative actions are also prohibited by Article 1. Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). They thereby deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process.
The Appellant claims that NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, and NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42, and NH RSA Chapter 657, enforced as law by the Defendants, permits the state and federal elections to be conducted manner that is contrary and repugnant to the mandatory due process provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art 11, and Part II. Art. 32, and Article 1. Section 4 of the U.S. Const. in a scheme which has disenfranchised the Appellant and diluted his vote by the state’s passage and use of the following colorable state election statutes.
The Appellant claims that the statutory schemes complained of have caused the unequal application of the election laws, and deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process and outcome for all offices, local, state, and federal elections in N.H. It is a fundamental federal and state right for equal application of election laws as between all citizen inhabitant taxpayer voters of this state and their equal fair vote is protected by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 15, and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Constitutional language synchronicity
The U.S. Const. (adopted in 1788 — 4 years after the passage of the NH State constitution in 1784) established the election process for all federal offices (regardless of state) in Article 1, Section 2 (qualification clause) and Article 1, Section 4 (the elections clause). Therefore, the power to choose federal representation cannot be dismissed or overlooked. While reserved to the states (under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Const) this use of the exact same word inhabitant (and definition) is also in federal Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Const (qualification clause) used in the State Const. of N.H. Part I, art. 11, and Part II, art. 30.
The Appellant’s lower court complaint raised federal questions from the start in his complaint, which was briefed on Appeal to this Court. The Appellant claims that NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657; enforced as law by the Defendants, violates Article 1. Section 2, Article 1. Section 4, Article 6, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and both the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and 17th Amendment by acting to override the state constitutionally mandated process using rules, legislative statutes, and email and oral communications to voting officials across the state. This failure to follow and uphold the law by authorities, while substituting alternative voting processes as though legitimate is egregious violation and an untrustworthy public act under color of law.
The Appellant filed new late authorities supporting this state voting error/violation position on August 14, 2023, and such authorities are now part of the record unrebutted by Defendants. The Appellant asserts Moore v. Harper, et al. (2023), (cited by this court Nov. 29, 2023) to be relevant and binding on this Court.
“Although the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their
duty to exercise judicial review. This Court has an obligation to ensure that state
court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law. For example, States
“May not sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property
interests.” Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 167. While
the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretations of state law
can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not
transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to
themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections… Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) Syllabus Pg. 5.
[Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Established a duty upon the state courts to perform judicial review of any state legislative act resulting from the state legislature’s improper exercise of powers delegated to it by Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const; and for the state courts to ensure that the legislature (1) acted with-in the scope of its enumerated powers when exercising its law-making authority under the Election clause Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const; and (2) for the state courts to ensure compliance with federal election laws.
[Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) are redistricting cases, requiring SCOTUS to examine the powers delegated to the state legislature in Elections Clause, Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const. The Moore court cited Smiley from 1932, which SCOTUS detailed as other duties of the state legislatures incorporated into Article 1, Section 4 (time, place and manner).
SCOTUS lists some of the state legislatures’ other Article 1, Section 4 duties besides redistricting on pg. 21 and 22 of the Moore v. Harper opinion:
“By fulfilling their constitutional duty to craft the rules governing federal elections, state legislatures do not consent, ratify, or elect—they make laws. Elections are complex affairs, demanding rules that dictate everything from the date on which voters will go to the polls to the dimensions and font of individual ballots. Legislatures must “provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including regulations “relati[ng] to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” (Emphasis Added) [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)]; (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)).
This Court recently cited the Moore v. Harper on November 29, 2023; “see also Moore v. Harper, 143S. Ct. 2065, 2088-90 (2023) explaining that, in redistricting cases, the Supreme Court has an obligation to ensure that the state court interpretations of [state] law do not evade federal law.”
The Appellant believes that since right to vote is the first fundamental right in the U.S. Const. Article 1, Section 2 as ratified by the states in 1788, predates the establishment of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791. Therefore, the federal standards of review on the Appellants federal voting rights apply.
The 2nd Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) [hereinafter “Heller”] and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen [hereinafter “Bruen”] decisions have changed the methodology that all state Courts must now employ when examining any controversy involving federally protected rights incorporated into the U.S. Const. and its Amendments.
Therefore, the Appellant believes that current federal standard of review use in the Heller, case and then used in Bruen, is the proscribed SCOTUS methodology for examining any of other enumerated individual rights in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
The Bruen Court abolished the past practice by state and federal courts of applying a means, ends scrutiny test which called for subjective judging. SCOTUS now requires all courts both state and federal, when examining federal constitutional rights, the courts must apply a two-part test: (1) examination of the plain text, (2) its historical context, usage and custom at the time the right was adopted and ratified by the people.
The Bruen Court found that “when plain text of the constitution covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”
The Bruen Court citing the Heller Court expanded this protection:
“This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms.” 554 U.S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. “[w]hen the Government restricts free speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.
… “And beyond the freedom of Speech, our focus on history also comports with how we assess many other constitutional claims. If a litigant asserts the right in court to “be confronted with the witnesses against him,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 6, we require courts to consult history to determine the scope of that right. See, e.g., Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 358 (2008) (“admitting only those exceptions [to the Confrontation Clause] established at the time of the founding” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, when a litigant claims a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, Members of this Court “loo[k] to history for guidance.” American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 25). We adopt a similar approach here.” Pg. 16 of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen.
Therefore, the same standard applies to the Appellant’s federal voting rights in this case.
INJURIES IN FACT
Count I
The Appellant has standing as he was denied the right to vote on March 8, 2022 by the Town of Auburn under color of state law thereby creating the current controversy. The Town of Auburn and the state Defendants cite the statutory schemes complained of in the case, as their authority to disenfranchise the Appellant on that day. In an attempt to appease the Appellant, the Town of Auburn now claims that they have exercised the powers of the legislature (not the Constitution) to enact and establish an ad hoc hand count policy (by local rule) thereby establishing (at this time) at least two different ways of counting votes in the Town of Auburn for all local, State and Federal, elections. Said continued actions by the Town of Auburn violate the equal protection clauses of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1 and 11; This non-compliant exercise of non-delegatable powers by the Town of Auburn is also prohibited by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Accordingly, Appellant continues to be harmed by the deprivation of a free, fair, and equal election process and reliable Constitutionally-faithful outcome.
Also, the plaintiff has a bonafide personal stake in the outcome of the election in which he was denied to vote, with a personal stake in his right under the NH Constitution Part I, Art. 11 to cast a ballot that is free from potential or actual manipulation by invisible electronic means. The Defendant Town and NH Secretary of State ” did cause harm” to the plaintiff for these named reasons. Defendants continue to enforce and promulgate their ‘statutory’ scheme(s) as law, as continuing harm to Appellant who continues to be deprived of a free, fair, and equal election process and outcome in local, State and Federal Elections.
The NH legislature recently established a hand count prohibition in all towns that use electronic voting machines, which now requires that any town or city that uses a voting machine can no longer have their ballots hand counted. Therefore, voters like the Appellant, who object to using voting machines on safety or constitutional grounds will now be denied the right to vote unless they use a voting machine. This is the nature of the Appellants complaint on March 9, 2023, which issue is now a Statewide problem, as 103 communities use hand count ballots in this State with the rest using electronic voting machines.
Count VI: harm caused by amending the Constitution without Consent
The statutory scheme used by the Defendants to justify depriving the Appellant his constitutional right to vote originates in details of Count VI. The 1976 ballot question #8 improperly statutorily amended the election law provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11 and Part II, Art.30. Said statutory “amendment” repealed the constitutional definition of qualified voters by “repealing” Art.13 [Qualification of Electors.]; it also repealed Art.28 [Senator, How and by Whom Chosen; Right of Suffrage]; repealed and altered Art.30 [inhabitant defined] by substituting “is domiciled” for “dwelleth and hath his home”; and repealed Art. 3 [inhabitants of unincorporated places; Their rights, etc.] All of these purported alterations to the Const. of N.H. claimed to repeal or alter vote-provisions state constitution but were improperly presented and later improperly enrolled as valid state “law” but without the informed consent of the inhabitants, as required by Part I, Articles 1, 12, 15, and Part II, Art. 5. Art. 100.
The Appellant has standing as this Court has already declared for question #8(b) (inhabitant, domicile change), and question #8(d) (notification of election results) which accordingly are null and void. See the argument that follows: the questions were improperly stated as a 5-part substantive question with only one available answer. The state failed to properly inform voters as to what changes would occur with a yes vote on that 1976 ballot question #8 with five illegitimate subparts.
The Defendants rely upon the “inhabitant, domicile change” of the 1976 ballot question #8 to write multiple and ongoing ‘statutes’ regarding voting pursuant thereof, however, these subsequent exercises of state actor authority under color of law are fundamentally flawed and corrupted. Quoting the Fischer Court in 2000:
…Thus, Part I, Article 11 was not properly amended to cause the removal of “proper qualifications” from the voting clause. Because it is evident that this change was neither “dependent upon nor interwoven with” the other changes to Article 11 nor with the amendments to additional articles simultaneously ratified by the electorate,”…. Fischer v. Governor, 145 N.H. 28, 38-39 (N.H. 2000).
Fischer is cited 8 times on the motion to reconsider on pg. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 on pg. 23-24. of the appeal. Gerber v. King, 107 N.H. 495, 500, 225 A.2d 620, 623 (1967) is cited on pg. 28 item 97 of the complaint and item 10, 17, 26 of the motion to reconsider.
The dependent intertwined vote-modification power issue is long settled law, Gerber v. King (Concrete Co. v. Rheaume Builders, 101 N. H. 59, 61; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N. H. 541, 542; Penrod v. Crowley, 82 Idaho 511). This Court has already declared in Gerber v. King (1967) that the legislature can not properly submit 5 substantive questions, and only provide the voter with one yes or no choice, as this is a direct violation of the procedural due process required by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15. and Part II, Art. 100; It cannot be used to amend any provision of the Const. of N.H.
The Gerber Court (1967) reaffirms the Appellants claims that only the inhabitants can consent to an amendment to the Const. of N.H. and such also protected by Part II, Art. 5 and Art. 100 that the legislature may only propose an amendment to the constitution one question at a time in order to properly meet the consent provision of the Const. of N.H. in Part I, Art. 1, 12, & 15 and Part II. Art. 100. Said amendments to the Const. of N.H. were achieved in a manner that is contrary and repugnant to the mandatory procedural due process clauses of the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, 12, 15, and Part II. Art. 5. Art. 100; and said amendment process is also prohibited federally by Art. 1 Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Said statutory scheme complained of and used by the Defendants relies on the question #8 (b) to enact a change of the historic definition of a qualified voter from inhabitant to domicile, leaving the legislature to define domicile by political design. Said Amendment question 8 b) is the poisonous tree, and the offending statutes now in operation are its poisonous fruit as an illegitimate statutory scheme presently denying Appellant his rightful constitutional vote.
By exercising undelegated powers and interfering in the election process under color of state law, the Appellees continue to deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process. The statutory construction statutes so relied upon by the State improperly redefine the definition of a qualified voter in a manner which is both fatally flawed and unconstitutional.
Count IV: harm caused from amending the Constitution without consent
Count VI of Petitioner’s Brief in Chief similarly was used in 1976 to attempt to amend the state constitution to redefine who is a qualified voter. Count IV, NH RSA 21:6 and NH RSA 21:6-a work together, and both statutes are contrary and repugnant to the definition of a qualified voter as provided in the state constitution the constitution Part I, Art. 11 and Part II. Art. 30, plus Federal Art. 1 Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment.
The harm caused by Counts VI and IV is that by enrolling NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a. they grant voting rights to non-qualified persons (namely resident aliens) who are not qualified to vote under the state and federal constitutions: [Const. of N.H. Part I Art.11. and the U.S. Const. Article 1, Section 2. By including non-qualified outside voters, the dilution of those properly qualified are not only diluted, but the propensity for manipulation and recruitment of the non-qualified (paid, incentivized, or otherwise engaged ‘to vote’) opens doors to political voter fraud tactics that alter election outcomes.
NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a dilute the Appellants vote, because it allows persons not properly qualified and registered pursuant to constitutional mandates to vote under Part I, Art. 11 and to cast ballots in all N.H. Elections, local, state and federal which are then counted as a legal ballot. There is also the inability to properly conduct accurate audits under this convoluted and evolving non-constitutional political system flowing from the post 1976-modifications to the constitution.
The Const. of N.H. Part I, Art.11 provides that “Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of voting” and Part II, Art. 30 provides “And every person, qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant.”
Statutorily however, NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a extends voting rights to resident aliens; as those persons who are not born or naturalized in N.H. All persons born or naturalized in one of the other states of the union or federal territory are citizens of the United States and a citizen of their state also under the 14th Amendment. The right to travel is protected by Article 4. Section 4. (privileges and immunities clause), but it does not convey state citizenship upon emigration from another state. United States v. Anthony, [June 18, 1873. Pg. 20. Item 72 of the complaint.]
Under the 9th and 10th Amendment to the U.S. Const. the states retain the authority to define who are its citizens, (1790 Naturalization Act); and the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 11, Part II, Art. 30, and Article 1. Section 2. defines voter qualifications. Federal law on emigration defines a resident in 8 U.S. Code § 1101- Definitions:
(33) The term “residence” means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.
Neither the Const. of N.H. nor the U.S. Const. provides the right to vote to a resident alien, and the use of a durational residency as a requirement to vote is prohibited by federal law. 52 U.S. Code § 10502 – Residence requirements for voting
(b) Congressional declaration: durational residency requirement, abolishment; absentee registration and balloting standards, establishment
Upon the basis of these findings, Congress declares that in order to secure and protect the above-stated rights of citizens under the Constitution, to enable citizens to better obtain the enjoyment of such rights, and to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth amendment, it is necessary (1) to completely abolish the durational residency requirement as a precondition to voting for President and Vice President, and (2) to establish nationwide, uniform standards relative to absentee registration and absentee balloting in presidential elections.
“One who has been for many years a citizen of a state is still a citizen thereof although residing temporarily in another state, but without any purpose of abandoning citizenship in the former”. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905)
Count II: harm caused by voting machine statutes
The Appellant claims that he was harmed by Defendants exercising undelegated powers to create and or enforce colorable state election laws contrary to the state constitutional voting laws. The statutory schemes complained of herein impermissibly violate Appellant’s right to an election process free of illegal governmental interference. (Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 11). The three impermissible acts of the legislature (NH RSA 656:40, 656:41 & 656:42) are impermissible legislative (political) acts causally leading to the following injuries:
NH RSA 656:40 materially alters Part II. Art. 32 (without the consent of the inhabitants), materially altering the 200-year-old practice of hand count votes. Hand counting votes were the current (2020 et al) practice in 103 communities throughout the State that follow Part II. Art. 32 (as amended in 1792). Part II, Art. 32. is the N.H. Constitution election clause created by the people. NH RSA 656:40 is the creation of the legislature and politicians manipulating constitutional alterations under color of law.
N.H. is a Dillon-Rule State and not a Home-Rule State, and the cities and town officials have no constitutional authority to change the manner in which the moderator, selectman, or town or city clerk must exercise their constitutional duties under Part II, Art. 32.
The Appellant claims that legislature exercised un-delegated powers when the legislature enacted NH RSA 656:40, 41, & 42 to politically create a new statutory second ‘manner’ for counting votes (electronic voting machines) not provided by Part II. Art. 32. by acting without the proper consent of the inhabitants, one of the injuries caused by RSA 656:40 is that it sets up an unequal election process across the state. According to 2022 data from the NH Voting Rights Campaign, 103 communities in the State hand count, while at same time permitting voting machine counts in 135 communities. The disparity and non-verifiability at the time of counting and for later auditing (re-counts) of the validity of each ballot/vote is an unreliable outcome and hidden opportunity to manipulate computer-counted data as well as including non-distinguishable illegitimate votes (non-constitutional voters’ ballots). Such ultra vires acts by the NH legislature are prohibited by Part I. Art. 1 & 12; plus, the U.S. Constitutional due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
NH RSA 656:40 also, causes an un-equal application of the election laws, it permits local mayors, alderman, or selectman in any city to exercise law making power by adaptation of a local rule, or policy in some towns or cites or not; to count votes by hand or to use electronic voting machines. Now we have two ways of counting votes, the manner provied by the people in Part II, Art. 32. and the new manner created by the legislature to use voting machines. If the manner of counting votes is different, they cannot be equal. Therefore, the Appellant is deprived a free, fair, and equal election process, and outcome.
An injury occurs when cities or towns use electronic voting machines to allow and then count un-qualified, un-verified, and un-certified ballots – ostensibly permitted by statute (argued in Count II, Count III, Count IV, and Count V), to be counted as legal votes. The statutory scheme disenfranchises the constitutionally-legitimate voter as it ultimately affects the outcome in State and Federal races. Towns and cities are free to use machines to count both legal and illegal ballots. The 2020 race saw statical improbability, and while the GOP maintained its majority in state offices, the all-Federal seats in last few elections have gone to the Democratic Party [Which logically makes no sense. Other voting numbers are similarly suspicious of altered voting political manipulation.]
NH RSA 656:40, 41, & 42 are also contrary and repugnant to the separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 37 previously cited in Appellant’s complaint [pg. 12 item 51.] Appellant’ standing to challenge legislative actions that encroach upon his rights for violation of the separation powers doctrine.
As the legislature cannot delegate its authority to make law to the towns or cities or the state ballot law commission – as it presently does, [State Constitution, Part II. Art. 5 and U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 4]. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023).
The NH Legislature acted without proper authority when it delegated its law-making powers by statute to a judicial body, the Ballot Law Commission using NH RSA 656:40 & 42, also prohibited by Part II. Art. 5; and Article 1. Section 4. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Such bad faith actions by the Defendants are prohibited by separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 37.
The NH Legislature acted without legitimate authority when it delegated by statute [RSA 656:40 &41] to delegate executive branch enforcement powers using its own rules to other entities it created or caused using the so-called authority of NH RSA 656:42. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Such bad faith actions by the Defendants are prohibited by separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 37.
Count V: harm caused from absentee voting statutes
The Appellant is harmed by the employment of another statutory overreach regarding absentee voting expansion beyond limits constitutionally imposed. NH RSA Chapter 657 is also contrary and repugnant to the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11. Altering this constitutional mandate by statute is expressly prohibited by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, 8, 11, 12, & 15. Also, Part II, Art. 5 & 100. The legislature can only propose an amendment to the Constitution, it cannot alter or amend the Const. of N.H. without the consent of the inhabitants, properly obtained under the constitutional provisions.
The harm caused by the expanded absentee voting scheme contained in RSA Chapter 657 is it purports to grant absentee voting rights to persons neither absent, nor disabled under Part I Art. 11 and these are the only two categories allowed. Therefore, by expanding this specifically enumerated class of absentee ballot voters, Appellant’s true vote is diluted with countless non-true non-verifiable other votes in a political schema not constitutionally derived. Part I Art. 11 guarantees the Appellant an election process free from un-constitutional governmental interference in process. The harm cause is two-fold. First, it creates a new class of voters, namely mail-in voters with all the potential for manipulation and dishonesty in throughout the request, two mailing, collection, and re-mailing processes (not provided for by Part I, Art. 11); and second authorizes overall an unverified, non-certifiable process representing an un-equal application of election laws.
The Appellant has a constitutional right under the state constitution (Part I. Art. 1 & 11) to insist that only properly qualified ballots are counted. Here all Inhabitants who vote in person must present identification at the local polling station in order vote, but absentee voters do not prove they are qualified, nor are their ballots re legitimately handled throughout and processed to avoid corrupt and unreliable practices. All absentee ballots since 1979 have this same fatal flaw, because there is no declaration of a specific exemption (seven reason and no selection of exemption) and no verified affidavit, which is proof that no one verifies the qualification or identities of absentee voters as required by Part, Art. 11 as part of the sloppy and omissive execution of the current statutory scheme.
This is prohibited by the equal protection clauses of the state Const. [Part I. Art. 1 & 11.] and prohibited by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The harm cause by this effect of this un-equal non-verified application of the ‘new’ elections laws as a significant impact on voting outcomes is evidenced on the N.H. Secretary of State’s website. It states that the 2014, 2016, and 2018 absentee voting averaged 4%.
The 2020 election saw absentee voting increased to 32%. And 32% absentee ballots cast included un-qualified, un-verified, and un-sworn absentee ballots without proper qualifications.
Count III: depravation of due process
In an un-fair contest against the state, the Appellant was denied the ability to present his expert witness over the safety of voting machines raised in the complaint; and further was denied a trial by jury, depriving the Appellant of due process of law protected by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 15 and 20; and prohibited by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Const.
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
Under the precedent of [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023), this Court has a duty to ensure that the N.H. Legislature acted within the scope of its enumerated powers. This Court must examine the acts of the N.H. Legislature in this case and ensure that the statutory schemes complained of, where enacted in a manner required by both the Const. of N.H. and the U.S. Const. and its amendments.
Therefore, the Appellant seeks the following relief from this Court, which is to declare the statutory schemes of the N.H. Legislature, complained of in Count I through VI (NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, and NH RSA 654:1. NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657;) enforced as law be declared void ab initio; and tell the legislature that the changes they seek to enact, must be done so by the consent of the inhabitants; and that state and federal election laws must be written pursuant to both the Const. of N.H. and the U.S. Const. and its amendments.
Remand the complaint back to a lower court for a trial by jury for civil and criminal resolution of the complaint.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LIMIT
The Plaintiff certifies that this memoranda complies with Supreme Court Rule 16(11). This brief does not exceed the 6000-word limit.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
CERTIFICATION
I, Daniel Richard, do hereby swear that on April 24, 2024, I did e-mail a copy of this to all the name Parties via the Supreme Court web portal.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
VERIFICATION
I, Daniel Richard, certify that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
The post Daniel Richard v Christopher Sununu – The Issue of Standing appeared first on Granite Grok.
I have written on this subject on numerous occasions and have yet to find a valid answer to the question many of us ponder. Why do people migrate from a Blue state like New York, California, or Massachusetts to Red or Purple states like New Hampshire, Tennessee, or Florida? The obvious answer would be financial or safety. Blue states are getting too expensive for even tax-loving Liberals, and the destination states I mentioned have at least one thing in common: no income tax or sales tax. The Red states tend to have better school systems. They also have lower crime rates than the states where they are exiting. Those are actual crime rates, not the manipulated statistics of Blue states, where they do not arrest criminals and, therefore, have a deflated rate.
So, if people are leaving these Blue states for a better quality of life in Red states, why do they bring their Progressive ideals with them that created those adverse climates they escaped? Why do they vote, or worse, get elected to office, to effectively change the Red state to be more like that which they left? I don’t have a means to get inside their heads for the answer, but we have seen how they accomplish their goals.
I have experienced firsthand two metamorphoses in New Hampshire and Maine, directly linked to Massachusetts. I came to New Hampshire in 1983 but was a rare Massachusetts Conservative and did not impact the Red characteristics then. `Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the thousands of Liberals who proceeded me. They came to take advantage of the Conservative principles on the one hand and to destroy them on the other.
Since 2019, there have been 40,000 Democrat voters relocating to Maine, especially to York or Cumberland counties. These people have been infiltrating the Maine government and turning it into the most liberal state in the union east of Oregon. Why these people think that because Oregon or Washington state adopt a policy, it is suitable for Maine, defies logic. Even Oregon is rethinking its Progressive drug laws and reverting them to more Conservative policies. The area around Portland, Oregon, has become so Progressive that many counties in the eastern part of the state have petitioned to secede from Oregon and join neighboring Utah.
In Maine, these liberals have put a stranglehold on the areas of Portland, Augusta, Auburn/Lewiston and have gained a majority position in the Maine government. This power has allowed them to push through bills that most Mainers cannot identify. Gun restrictions in their war on the second amendment, the most liberal abortion law in the country allowing abortion to the moment of birth, creating Maine as a sanctuary state for minors seeking abortion or transgender care from other states, and joining the Popular Vote Compact to eradicate the Electoral College in violation of the Constitution are a few of the Progressive laws now on Maine’s book.
To label Liberal Democrats as Progressive is a contradiction of the word. There is nothing progressive in creating laws that show you are against the principles of America and, taken as a whole, show a hatred of this greatest political experiment in the history of the world. That is not Progressive but Regressive and Destructive. Americans are free to choose the state they wish to live in but not recreate it. If that is your purpose, please return to where you came from on the road you came in on.
The post What Motivates Our Transient Society appeared first on Granite Grok.
I just cannot understand how anyone can believe that the 2024 election, like the elections preceding it, is NOT going to be rigged. For example, in a recent post on this blog: “The trial in New York City is backfiring on the Democrats.” In what universe?
It is working perfectly, actually … Trump is prevented from campaigning for six to eight weeks. The corporate media “covers” the “trial” as if it were a real crime and not a made-up, make-believe crime, and the vast majority of Americans buy into the deception.
The truth of the matter, bitter-clingers, is that America has NOT been a democracy for at least half a century. Our federal elections are merely camouflage for the true government … the permanent administrative/bureaucracy. The “intelligence community” is our real government … they want a proxy war in Ukraine; they get a proxy war in Ukraine. And their lapdogs in the corporate media… INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY FOX NEWS … portray complaint, gutless, self-serving GOP “representatives” as “courageous” and having “done the right thing” for doing the bidding of the “intelligence community.”
When do you think was the last period of time that America had truly representative government, rather than a permanent bureaucracy/spy state that manipulated events to maintain control of the system?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 22, 2024
NEW: Tucker Carlson explains how the FBI and CIA conducted a coup to take out President Richard Nixon with help from journalist Bob Woodward.
“Richard Nixon was taken out by the FBI and CIA, and with the help of Bob Woodward.”
“[Woodward] was that guy. And who is his main… pic.twitter.com/K8Yt9zy9Qk
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 20, 2024
NEW: Tucker Carlson says elected politicians have told him they’re terrified of intel agencies installing child p*rn on their computers if they speak out.
Insane.
Carlson suggested the U.S. is not a democracy and is a tyranny instead because U.S. politicians are completely… pic.twitter.com/41MoHTfMkW
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 20, 2024
The post America Has NOT Been A Democracy For At Least FIFTY (50) Years … But Just Keep Pretending, Bitter-Clingers appeared first on Granite Grok.
Another blow to parental rights is taking place in The New Hampshire House and Senate. SB341 is a simple and logical proposed Bill. SB341 would require all school employees to respond honestly and completely to written requests by parents regarding information relating to their children.
Many people will wonder why that isn’t standard practice to begin with. Shouldn’t teachers answer the questions from parents honestly?
Several years ago, The New Hampshire School Boards Association put forward a model policy for school districts to adopt.JBAB addressed school policies for transgender students. Within the policy, there is a provision that directs teachers to lie to parents if parents ask about their child’s gender status while they are at school. The NHSBA withdrew its support for this policy a few years ago, but several schools still have it in place. You can go to your district’s website and look for school policies to see if your district still requires school personnel to lie to parents under III. Guidance A. Privacy:
III. GUIDANCE A. Privacy
The Board recognizes a student’s right to keep private one’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation at school. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name, or gender assigned at birth also may constitute confidential information. School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others, including parents and other school personnel, unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure. Transgender and gender nonconforming students have the right to discuss and express their gender identity and expression openly and to decide when, with whom, and how much to share private information.
When contacting the parent or guardian of a transgender or gender nonconforming student, school personnel should use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s gender assigned at birth unless the student, parent, or guardian has specified otherwise.
Since then, one parent in Manchester has sued the district, and other parents are now beginning to wonder what else school officials are willing to hide from them.
Federal law requires districts to disclose all records on students to their parents (FERPA)
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are “eligible students.”
*Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records.
So, who decided that this information should not be included in a child’s record and that parents should be denied any information about their children?
If you are concerned about a child’s safety, the proposed legislation does include a clause that allows a teacher to withhold information from a parent if they suspect the child will be harmed. Like teachers, parents are innocent until proven guilty. So, there is no reason to withhold information from parents unless they are a threat to that child.
None of that mattered to the Democrats on the House Education Committee. This week, they voted against SB 341, while the Republicans voted to support it. With a 10-10 vote, SB341 now goes before the entire NH House for a vote without recommendation.
SB341 did pass the NH Senate down party lines. All Democrats opposed it. All Republicans supported it.
Why is it that Democrats think it’s ok for teachers to lie to good parents?
Now would be a good time to contact your State Representative and ask them to vote Ought to Pass on SB341. Tell them that school personnel lying to good parents is unacceptable.
You can find your State Representative here: https://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/
The constant attack on parental rights needs to stop. Trying to break a sacred bond between parent and child is wrong.
The post Should Teachers Lie to Parents? Democrats in New Hampshire say YES appeared first on Granite Grok.
Good Morning. I’m Samuel Safford from Pelham, NH. At age 4, I was diagnosed with a rare genetic defect called Duchenne MD. It is fatal and has no cure. The doctors told my parents that my brother and I would not live long enough to graduate high school, never mind go to college or get a job. But they were wrong.
My life has not been easy. My father passed away when I was 13. I was the only kid in a wheelchair in High School. I used to sit alone at lunch, I was sad, lonely and depressed.
Back in 2021, after a hospital stay, I was diagnosed with a brain bacteria called Bartonella. This illness is an opportunistic pathogen from a tick or flea bite that causes brain inflammation leading to psychiatric issues. My physical disability was nothing compared to the psychiatric symptoms of Bartonella. It was unbearable. My depression turned into despair, and I began waking up every morning wanting to die. These suicidal thoughts became too much for me.
We want to thank Sam Safford for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Fortunately, my mom found me a helpful counselor and a homeopathic doctor who helped treat my Bartonella. Three years later, I can say that I am well and enjoy a rich, abundant life. I am part of a Toastmasters group in Windham and enjoy giving motivational speeches. I am a writer, singer, and artist, and I’m active in my church and community. My life has value and dignity.
I urge you to oppose Assisted Suicide. The medical community and insurance companies will only use it to end the lives of people like me. Instead, let’s provide compassionate care. No matter how you look at it, there is no dignity in suicide.
The post My Life has Value and Dignity appeared first on Granite Grok.
We’ve had many high-ranking and number-one honors over the years (many of them year after year), but I’m not sure we’ve ever gotten this number one. We consistently rank high, in the top three at worst, but Ammo.com has ranked New Hampshire as the best State in the nation for firearms owners in 2024.
New Hampshire is a permitless carry state with incredibly relaxed gun laws (and low crime rates). Any citizen over 18 years old who is lawfully permitted to possess a firearm can open and conceal carry. New Hampshire residents can travel to 29 other states with a pistol and revolver license[110]. The state also honors all 50 states’ permits.
Residents won’t need to attend firearms safety courses, go through a fingerprinting process, or any other stringent tests to obtain a permit. The state also issues permits[111] to out-of-state residents (although they’re only valid in NH). Purchasers are required to pass federal background checks in accordance with federal law.
But what’s better is that New Hampshire currently doesn’t have a state sales tax[112]. So you won’t pay additional taxes on firearms purchases. Those finding themselves in a self-defense situation may be protected from prosecution if they are protecting life or property, with no duty to retreat[113].
Governor Chris Sununu recently signed into law a bill[114] that restricts the state’s law enforcement from enforcing federal laws that infringe on an individual’s right to gun ownership. Essentially, New Hampshire seems to be the best state for gun owners, with low crime rates and minimal restrictions on firearms and purchases.
You can see how your State fared here or check out their visually stimulating map with big, friendly numbers. California ranked 50, New York 49, and Vermont – how far it has fallen – is 31.
Ammo.com provides its methodology (ranking factors) along with footnotes to links on which it bases its research.
So, congrats to NH. Another number One.
The post Ammo.com Names New Hampshire #1 Best State for Firearms Owners appeared first on Granite Grok.
As promised in Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over. And yes there will be a Friday edition too.
Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
Please understand that I don’t want to be right on my Depopulation Speculations – already late on the timing, so there’s hope – but at the same time…
Caddyshack – Well? We’re Waiting (youtube.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
There would, doubtless, still be people who – despite the pain at the pump and inflation in general – would still cheer that “Orange Man” is not in power. My belief is this, captured in a cartoon, that people could be in a collapsed society, but still be grateful that Trump is not in.
Simple: to keep those citizens from defending themselves against those armed illegals.
More generally, liberals evade facts that don’t support their view of their moral (and intellectual) superiority.
For Hollyweird, trans kids are a trendy fashion statement. Burn. It. All. Down.
No, no they don’t. Reality imitates art.
I’d argue it’s much worse than that.
Why am I somehow reminded of Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation?
There’s a scene in the movie “Devil’s Advocate” where Satan (Al Pacino) is talking about using the law to get acquittal after acquittal after acquittal until the universe fills up with darkness – or something like that.
What hath feminism wrought? Same with porn for men – the expectations are set that cannot possibly match reality.
Is Trump “salvation”? I doubt it; certainly he’s not a deity.
I know I’ve mentioned it before… in one of Bernard Goldberg’s books he described how a reporter, on the scene as an eye witness to a massive chemical spill / release (in India IIRC – possibly the Bhopal incident) where he called his editor to describe it. That editor declined to run what would have been a career-making scoop… until he saw it coming across “the wires” so it was officially news.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
Yes, they are coming for your kids. It’s Communist doctrine to do so.
https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/children-and-indoctrination.mp4
This about the video: a woman abandons her family – children! – to become a missionary for Communism in Russia. Thus proving my oft-asserted point – that this is a RELIGION. And that the fight against the Left is not a war of ideas per se, but a religious war against fanatics who believe they can create paradise on earth. See Bill Whittle’s review of the Frankfurt School.
Two different Socialists agree with indoctrination:
Incidentally, while I do attempt to guide my kids, I do so by the Socratic method, not brow-beating.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Links (some from me, some from my Jarhead friend):
Biden Signs Bill Gates’ Pact to ‘Combat Future Pandemics’ – Slay News
Who the living F is Bill Gates so connected with that he has this kind of pull? It can’t JUST be money IMHO; just what info is Microsoft gathering?
—
Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s Explosive Court Testimony on COVID “Vaccines”(UPDATED) (aussie17.com)
Courtroom testimony – thus I infer under oath – censored by youtube. Because “misinformation”. Transcript at the link. Every time I want to believe that the censorship is ending, I see things like this. They’re determined to control your thoughts through the information you have available.
sHeEp BrAiN – Top Molecular Geneticist Warns mRNA Jabs are ERASING Memories & HIJACKING Personalities (substack.com)
There’s a longstanding joke about people being idiots. “You sound vaccinated”. Looking more and more like this might actually be a thing.
Multiple COVID Shots Linked to Higher Mortality Rates in 18- to 39-Year-Olds • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Non-sterilizing (does not stop infection, replication, transmission) vaccines: they knew (vaccine makers, vaccinologists) that if you MASS vaccinate into a population across age-groups, in the MIDST (substack.com)
It means that mechanically, there was NO way that the COVID mRNA vaccine could have ever even worked.
It was DOA. Day one.
—
‘Democrats Got Everything They Wanted’: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Hailed as House ‘Shadow Speaker’ After $95 Billion Ukraine Bill Passes (infowars.com)
Uniparty.
—
How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past – Watts Up With That?
Great graphs plus other info. More – destroying wealth and civilizations, in the name of climate:
The War On Cars | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero? – Watts Up With That?
—
Bayou Renaissance Man: Some inflation is nothing more than deliberate price-gouging by businesses
‘Something Will Have to Give’: IMF Issues Dire Warning to Biden Administration (westernjournal.com)
Economy sucks canal water. And this is deliberate.
—
U.S. Troops Forced Out in ANOTHER Humiliating Biden Diplomacy Fail. (thenationalpulse.com)
Remember, these are the people who said they were the experts – the “adults in the room” compared to Orange Man.
—
NYC Man Convicted Over Gunsmithing Hobby After Judge Says 2nd Amendment ‘Doesn’t Exist in This Courtroom’ – RedState
She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’
Police Website Reveals CDC Suppressing Defensive Gun Use Data – The Truth About Guns
—
Blaze News investigates: The truth about raw milk the government doesn’t want you to know: ‘Close to a perfect food’ | Blaze Media (theblaze.com)
I’m still leery, but at this point if “government” says X, I’ll default to believing NOT X until more data come in.
—
Surveillance Need Not Be Governmental – Liberty’s Torch (libertystorch.info)
In the UK. But doubtless coming here.
—
Smithsonian, America’s Top Museum, Worried it Can’t Hold Drag Shows Any More – The Lid (lidblog.com)
Our tax dollars at work. Related:
—
Trump is busy in New York dealing with BS “trials”, which is what they want (so he’s not out campaigning). Here are two articles (both by lawyers) showing that these charges are bogus, and the trial is a sham just designed to waste Trump’s time & money (and the taxpayers money also):
The lawfare against Donald Trump hits new heights today (substack.com)
Related:
https://www.declassified.live/p/another-defense-against-braggs-sham
Among all the bills being voted on (that give our money to foreign governments), one that slipped under the radar is the REPO bill, which aims to take seized Russian money and give it to Ukraine. Gee, let’s give some MORE money to Ukraine, I mean it’s not like we need it here, right? Also, it’s another way to “poke” the Russian bear. These people WANT to start WW3, and the American citizen can go to hell:
https://pomp.substack.com/p/geopolitical-chess-meets-economics
—
Major banks are being called on the carpet for de-banking Christian organizations. But the government is not stopping them. Imagine the hue & cry if they de-banked a Muslim organization:
Major Banks Debanking Christians | Armstrong Economics
Related:
Largest Christian University in America Gets Fined $37 Million. Coincidence or Targeted Attack? (dailysignal.com)
—
This short video (2 minutes) sums up 25 things that are actively being used to destroy America:
Diogenes’ Middle Finger: For Those Who Haven’t Been Paying Attention….. (diogenesmiddlefinger.com)
Related:
https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1782569668462477545
—
BRM with another good “you need to think about this” article. What happens when critical infrastructure goes down due to enemy action. And you have no water, no heat (or AC), no electricity, no access to banks, etc. And not for a few days, like after a big storm, but for MONTHS, maybe YEARS:
Bayou Renaissance Man: About that critical infrastructure…
Related:
Bayou Renaissance Man: More about our fragile global Internet
>>>>>=====<<<<<
So here’s a question: How was it that these were bought and handed out ahead of time?
Increasingly, Magic Eight Ball says NO.
I would love to go to visit Australia. Nope, not now.
Towards a permanent-majority voting block. They’ve been working on this for DECADES.
About the only thing I trust government to do.
YouTube still at it.
Unverified, but very possible. Slowly, slowly, slowly the constrictor tightens its coils.
Remember, conquest by migration & demographics – Hijra – is a real thing in Islam.
OOH, I am grateful America is supporting Israel. OTOH, it only shows that Israel MUST work to cut the financial dependency on America.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the Post:
Understand that I post this reluctantly; there’s enough Jew hate around as it is. “Circling the wagons” is a natural reaction. But if we, as a people, cannot and do not call out our own, others will take that as tacit approval. To take no action is an action in and of itself.
Grooming is real – after all, since LGBTQP don’t reproduce biologically, their ongoing numbers MUST come from other sources. And this denial by the ADL only fuels the fires of those who hate us for their perception that “all Jews” are for this. Like my open letter calling out pro-migration Jews, this too must be called out and criticized. Primarily, of course, for the children affected by this, but also to show that Jews are nowhere near united behind this perversion.
Just look at the open and outright denial – gaslighting – of what people understand is implicitly and obviously true through simple logic: that LGBTQP+ increases because of grooming and indoctrination.
What is “Grooming?” The Truth Behind the Dangerous, Bigoted Lie Targeting the LGBTQ+ Community | ADL
This calling-out-our-own applies not just to this, and to migration, but to the perceived unity in Jewish advocacy of Communism. Except:
Socialism and Passover: The Holiday Of Freedom – The Lid (lidblog.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate cleansers:
—
—
Been learning Morse code and trying to teach it to my kids (without much luck). I can send – very slowly – messages but would have to see them written down to decode them. Practice, of course…
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back on Friday for more memes. Same meme time. Same meme channel.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.