Saturday • April 26 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XVII
Manchester, N.H.
The polls continue to slide and show how little the American people think of the job performance of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. In fact, Harris dipped to the lowest approval rating of any Vice President in history.
Only 32% of Americans approve, while 49% disapprove, for a -17% spread. This rating is significant because of the age and condition of Joe Biden. Should the pair be re-elected, Joe Biden would be 82 when he takes the oath. She is literally a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Biden is not performing much better in the polls. His 41% approval is close to the lowest rating of his term. A staggering number is the 73% of those polled who do not want to see Joe Biden on the 2024 ballot. These deplorable numbers are for a President who claims to have one of the most successful ever. There is obviously a disconnect between his vision and American’s view.
The Democrats seem to be grooming potential replacements should they convince Joe and Kamala to step aside. This may be futile as Joe and Kamala must be pushed aside to make room for options. Joe’s ego and need for the money flow his career has supplied will not let him remove himself from the quest for reelection. He may also require the cover the office provides for him and his family. Kamala sees herself as a historical figure and wants nothing more than to be the first woman of color to be President. She does not want to earn the job. She feels entitled to it.
The Democrats have a weak bench. Their power people like Clinton, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren have been in Washington for so long that they no longer appeal to or identify with the younger voters. The Progressive fringe members of the Party are too far Left for most Americans and a general election. Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Joaquin Jeffries are sitting on the far end of the bench and are whispered about as potential candidates for 2024. None of these people have success stories on their resumes, and in the case of Newsom and Whitmer, their performances on the state level do not bear well on the national stage. None of these three would be a trade-up from Biden, and all would continue the movement toward a more Socialistic country.
So what are the options and game plan for the Democrats? The possibilities are few as Biden calls the shots as sitting President. He wants and needs the job. Impeachment is not a viable course. It would never get past the Democrat-controlled Senate, and nobody wants to see Harris elevated to the Presidency via Impeachment. The Biden Camp has shut down the Democrat Primary and Debate machines. He will go underground as he did in 2020 and let his spokespeople, surrogates, and the media campaign for him. This process is not how our President and supposed leader of the free world should be chosen. But that is what the American political game hated evolved to.
If the state of the union is not enough to convince voters that the Biden era is over, then the crimes of the family may take the wheels off the Biden Political Train.
The post Can There Be Worse Than Joe And Kamala appeared first on Granite Grok.
A car accident deposition is a vital part of the legal process for seeking compensation. The opposing attorney will ask questions to gather information and establish facts. Be prepared to answer these questions confidently. Here are some common questions.
Be honest and truthful in your answers. Don’t exaggerate or make up information. The opposing attorney will look for inconsistencies, so think carefully before answering. Be prepared for questions about the accident, your injuries, and damages.
Remember, these are general questions, and the specific questions asked during a car accident deposition can vary greatly depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is essential to consult with your attorney to prepare adequately and ensure you understand your rights and obligations during the deposition process.
In conclusion, a car accident deposition involves answering questions posed by the opposing attorney to gather information and establish the facts of the case. By familiarizing yourself with common questions and preparing truthful and concise responses, you can navigate the deposition process confidently and contribute to building a solid case. Remember to consult with your attorney for guidance tailored to your specific situation.
The post Top Questions in a Car Accident Deposition appeared first on Granite Grok.
Are you considering taking a professional certification exam but aren’t sure which one to choose? Look no further! In this blog post, we’ll be comparing two of the most popular and highly respected exams: CISSP and PMP. Both certifications are in high demand in their respective fields, but which one is harder? We’ll dive into the domains covered by each exam, the structure of the tests, and ultimately help you determine which exam is right for you. So buckle up and let’s get started on our journey to find out if CISSP really is harder than PMP!
Comparing the CISSP and PMP examsCISSP and PMP are both professional certification exams that hold significant value in their respective fields. CISSP stands for Certified Information Systems Security Professional, while PMP stands for Project Management Professional. Despite having different names, they share a lot of similarities.
One similarity between the two exams is that they both require extensive preparation before taking them. Both tests have broad domains that cover various topics within their respective fields, so you must be well-versed in these areas to pass them.
Another similarity is the structure of the tests. Both exams consist of multiple-choice questions and follow specific guidelines set by their respective organizations. The CISSP exam has 250 questions with a time limit of six hours, while the PMP exam has 200 questions with a time limit of four hours.
However, there are also notable differences between these two exams. For example, the domains covered by each test differ significantly from one another. CISSP covers topics such as security and risk management, asset security, communication and network security among others; whereas PMP focuses on project initiation, planning execution monitoring control and closing stages.
Ultimately it comes down to which field you want to specialize in or advance your career in when choosing between CISSP vs PMP certifications – cybersecurity or project management respectively!
The domains covered by the CISSP and PMP examsThe CISSP and PMP exams are two of the most coveted certifications in their respective fields. The domains covered by these exams vary significantly, reflecting the different skill sets required for each certification.
The CISSP exam covers eight domains, including security and risk management, asset security, security engineering, communication and network security, identity and access management (IAM), security assessment and testing, software development security, and operations security. These domains reflect the comprehensive knowledge necessary to design, implement, manage and assess IT systems’ cybersecurity posture.
On the other hand, the PMP exam is focused on project management principles across five process groups: initiating a project; planning a project; executing a project; monitoring & controlling a project; closing a project. These process groups cover various tasks such as defining scope statements or creating budgets that are critical to successful completion of projects within time constraints.
While both exams require extensive preparation before taking them on successfully – they differ greatly in terms of what is being tested due to their diverse focus areas.
The structure of the CISSP and PMP examsThe structure of the CISSP and PMP exams is quite different from one another. The CISSP exam consists of 250 multiple-choice questions, which must be completed within six hours. These questions are based on ten domains that include security operations, asset security, and software development security.
On the other hand, the PMP exam comprises 200 questions that are a combination of both multiple-choice and scenario-based questions. These questions are divided into five sections – initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing – each covering various project management concepts.
Moreover, while both exams require candidates to have significant knowledge in their respective fields of study, they differ in terms of content coverage. While the CISSP exam focuses more on information security topics such as access control systems and cryptography techniques; the PMP exam covers everything related to project management like risk management strategies or cost-benefit analysis methods.
Understanding these differences between the structure of these two certification exams can help you determine which one will suit your career goals better.
The difficulty level of the CISSP and PMP examsThe CISSP and PMP exams are both challenging in their own ways. The difficulty level of these exams depends on a number of factors such as the individual’s knowledge, experience and preparation.
The CISSP exam covers eight domains ranging from Security Operations to Software Development Security. With 250 questions, it tests your knowledge across all domains with multiple-choice questions that require critical thinking skills.go to website:https://www.spotoclub.com
On the other hand, the PMP exam is focused on project management concepts such as planning, executing and closing projects. It consists of 200 multiple choice questions covering five process groups – Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring and Controlling, Closing.
Both exams require extensive study time along with practical experience in their respective fields. However, many professionals consider the CISSP exam to be more difficult due to its broader range of topics and depth of knowledge required for each domain.
Whether you find one harder than the other will depend on your background in either cybersecurity or project management. Both certifications hold great value for professionals looking to advance their careers within these industries.
Which exam is right for you?Choosing the right exam is crucial for your career growth, and it all depends on your interests and goals. If you’re interested in project management, then PMP might be the right choice for you. On the other hand, if you want to pursue a career in cybersecurity, then CISSP could be more suitable.
It’s important to consider your current skills and experience before deciding which exam to take. If you already have experience in project management or IT security, then taking the corresponding certification can validate your knowledge and improve your employability.
Another factor to consider is how much time and effort you’re willing to commit. Both exams require significant preparation time, but CISSP may take longer due to its broader scope of topics. PMP focuses specifically on project management methodologies and practices.
Consider what certifications are valued in your industry or region of work. Some industries place greater value on one certification over another.
Choosing between CISSP vs PMP depends entirely on individual needs and aspirations; hence thorough research should precede any decision-making process concerning this matter.
ConclusionAfter comparing the CISSP and PMP exams, it’s clear that both certifications require significant effort to attain. The domains covered by each exam are quite different, but they both demonstrate expertise in their respective fields.
The structure of the exams also differs significantly, with the CISSP requiring a deeper understanding of technical concepts while PMP focuses more on project management processes and methodologies.
Determining which certification is right for you will depend on your career goals and interests. If you have a passion for cybersecurity and want to showcase your knowledge and skills in this area, then pursuing the CISSP may be the best choice. On the other hand, if you’re interested in project management or are looking to advance your career as a project manager, then PMP could be an excellent option.
In any case, both certifications are highly respected by employers worldwide and can help open doors to new opportunities. So whichever path you choose to pursue – whether it’s CISSP or PMP – remember that hard work pays off in achieving success!
The post Is CISSP Harder Than PMP? appeared first on Granite Grok.
We Americans are a unique nation in many delightful ways (forgetting how hard Progressives want us to be like other nations) thanks to our Founding Fathers’ political and historical genius. That sociological masterpiece we call the US Constitution.
That genius was in their foundational notion that Power is sought by all the wrong people and that they had to design their framework to isolate that urge to make it as difficult as possible to protect Society against the Government, the States against the Federal Government, and the Branches of the Federal Government from each other.
In the end, however, it comes down not to Government or Society but to us. What have we, individual Americans, done to protect that document by not allowing those that crave Power to aggregate and abuse it? Lately, I don’t think we’ve done much. 74% of us believe that the county is not on the right path. But it is a poll question that only asks that – not WHICH WAY or in which direction; are we giving up too much Freedom, or are we not giving the Government enough Power?
In Russia, we just saw an abortive coup. The Wagner mercenary army took over Russian army positions and leverage points and started to march to Moscow. Until it got aborted, and I doubt that few people, even in Russia, have a complete idea of what happened when the best army in Russia (a private mercenary force) stood down. What I do know is that The Truth About Guns had a piece that my bingo card would never have EVAH had.
Seriously, would any of us in the Freedom camp have thought this would happen? Emphasis mine, reformatted:
Russians Suddenly Discover the Value of an Armed Populace
Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, a Russian businessman who has sought to unite groups opposing Putin, called on Russians opposed to the regime to arm themselves. Khodorkovsky wrote on his Telegram channel:
“Now we see that only armed people can resist the dictatorship,” “Now there is a small window of opportunity when there is chaos on the streets and the security forces are not in control of the situation.”
He said the dramatic standoff would likely result in further repression:
“If you see the strength in yourself in the future to become those armed people who will oppose Putin or Prigozhin, then it’s time to arm yourself,” he said. “Prigozhin is not our friend and not even our ally. He is a bandit and a war criminal. But his rebellion is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and there won’t be another like it for a long time.”
Who knew? Who knew that even people who have lived under totalitarian governments for over a hundred years would understand that the basis of our Second Amendment might be their source of freedom? The ability to defend themselves. Sure, at a high cost, most likely, and as we saw in our Revolution, few participated. Would Khodorkovsky find like-minded people?
From the little I know, the phrase is “If you are going to kill the King, KILL THE KING!”. And in this case, he’s staring at TWO Kings – mostly? Sorta? Prigozhin lit out to Belarus with no one knowing what the terms are (and what little we do know seems to be changing quickly).
Our Rights stem from God and are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
Sidenote: with fewer and fewer Americans believing in God, are WE in trouble soon when we reach that tipping point that the Progressives are aching for in their “There is no God – WE are our own gods” and revoke it?
Russians have no such right in theirs. However, they understand that they need one.
Even if this coup goes away, the idea won’t. What will happen then?
The post There’s A Reason for Our 2nd Amendment and Now the Russians Understand appeared first on Granite Grok.
Sports can be divisive. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Michigan vs. Ohio State. El Salvador vs. Honduras. What? Yup. These two countries went to war in 1969 after El Salvador beat Honduras 3-2 in a FIFA World Cup (soccer) qualifier.
Then there was that preseason NFL game in San Francisco. After the 49ers hosted the Oakland Raiders, football “fans” got into some parking lot fights, and several people were shot.
But sports can also bring folks together. Like when our USA Olympic ice hockey team beat the Soviets in 1980. That “Miracle on Ice” truly united Americans—from Maine to California to maybe even Hawaii!
A local example of sports bringing people together occurred on June 26 when Loudon Country Club hosted the Legislative Golf Classic. This “scramble” event brought together Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, vegetarians, males, females, friends, relatives, lobbyists, good golfers, bad golfers, young golfers, and older golfers. One participant even celebrated his 90th birthday at LCC.
The golf event was a charity fund-raiser for Manchester’s Liberty House, which supports homeless and transitioning military veterans. I was happy to be on the event planning team as well as on a golf team—the Legislative Beer Caucus Founders.
As a former sports management professor, I know there are many crucial parts to these fundraisers. Numerous people must tend to many aspects, including player/sponsor solicitations, publicity, registrations, goodie bags, signage, raffles, and contest monitoring. Someone must watch the Hole-in-One competition to document a golfer getting an ace worth $20,000. (Before buying clubhouse drinks for all.) And someone must supervise the all-important traveling beer cart and the all-important Beer Cart Girl.
(One may wonder why there are never any Beer Cart Guys. And one can probably figure out why.)
Fortunately, LCC had the extremely capable Alina in charge of the extremely important traveling beer cart.
But there is one variable that even the best planners in the golf world struggle with.
The weather.
Ten days out, I woke up, and the first thing I did was check the 10-day forecast. There was a 90% chance of precipitation on June 26. A couple of days later an 80% chance. A couple of days later, there was a projected 100% chance of precipitation. My heart sank. It rained on a different golf scramble at LCC on June 24. The two-day forecast called for more rain on June 26.
Even the best golf planners can’t control the weather. Or can they?
I recalled that General George Patton summoned a chaplain during the darkest days of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 and ordered him to come up with a prayer that would bring good weather for air support. Father James O’Neill was the chaplain who answered the call, and he wrote a beautifully solemn entreaty asking the Almighty to “restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend.”
The skies cleared, and the battle was won.
So, a la Father O’Neill, I offered up a weather prayer. I acknowledged that there were folks facing more dire situations than our scramble golfers. Certainly, the suffering people in Ukraine rated more divine intervention than our legislative linksters. But we wanted to bring folks of different political persuasions together to raise money for the homeless! I ultimately left things in the hands of the Great Greenskeeper in the Sky.
I awoke early on June 26 and looked out the window. It was cloudy but dry. And it stayed dry through the morning and into the afternoon as Republicans and Democrats laughed it up, hitting golf balls up and down the hills of Loudon Country Club.
My foursome encountered the extremely capable Alina and the extremely important traveling beer cart at least four times in five hours. And we all hit at least a few good shots—such fun.
And it stayed dry for the post-golf social, where Democrats and Republicans literally and figuratively embraced and laughed it up. We’d raised around $20,000—along with a few libations. After the final award was given, the legislative linksters headed for their cars when suddenly the heavens burst forth with heavy rain.
Perfect timing.
Somehow, I think Father O’Neill was watching from somewhere.
#####
State Rep. Mike Moffett of Loudon chairs the House Committee on State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs.
The post Legislative Golf, George Patton, and Good Weather appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Florida governor running for president likes to tout how Florida passed “constitutional carry” legislation this year – under his watch. But a close examination of House Bill 543, and related laws that were unchanged, reveals that “constitutional carry” is illusory at best.
Open carry of firearms remains prohibited in Florida and constitutes a crime called “brandishing.”
You may conceal carry in Florida under the DeSantis “constitutional carry” law without obtaining a government permit or license if you are not a prohibited person. But the law did not change the fact that firearms are still not permitted to be carried, even with a permit, in any of the 15 places outlined in Florida Statute §790.06(12)(a), including most bars and lounges, any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any polling place; and any college or university facility (with only a few limited exceptions).
You can call it an expanded carry law, but it is not constitutional carry by even the broadest definitions.
Open carry (i.e. carrying on one’s person a firearm entirely or partially visible) without the necessity of obtaining a government issue permit or license has been the law of New Hampshire for many decades.
And while before February of 2017, carrying concealed in public required obtaining a pistol permit from the government in a relatively painless process; that changed dramatically on February 22, 2017, when the NH Governor signed a bill into law making New Hampshire the 11th state to have “constitutional carry” as a matter of law.
New Hampshire’s constitutional carry law is clean, pure, and straightforward. Unless a person is prohibited from carrying or possessing a firearm under state or federal law, they may carry a concealed firearm in nearly all public places without obtaining a government permit or license. You may not have a firearm, either openly or concealed, in a courthouse or in the sterile areas of an airport. And federal law imposes some restrictions on places where firearms are not permitted, such as post offices and a few other locations.
It’s not true constitutional carry, as in anywhere you have a right to be. Still, the bottom line is that New Hampshire has a more bona fide constitutional carry, while constitutional carry in Florida is a step in the right direction, but with a long way to go.
The post Florida’s Phony Constitutional Carry Law appeared first on Granite Grok.
I was watching Tucker on Twitter episode six, and he featured a story about an insufferable prick named Dr. Peter Hoetez. You’ve likely heard of him. Twitter users have amassed millions for his favorite charity if he will debate Robert Kennedy Jr. on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
The “Hoe” still refuses. It is beneath him. “One typically doesn’t debate science,” Hotez said.
The science of COVID, as with the Climate, is not open to debate. There is a revered text, psalms refigured to music, and a series of repetitious actions (kneel, sit, stand, and genuflect). These are their stations of the cross; masks, distancing, and mRNA vaccines that – like the CDC’s hospital protocols – are divine inventions of man and proof of Scientism’s will on earth.
Put another way; there is no second opinion. You can’t have one, get one, or believe one if it is not identical to the first opinion—another sheep in the heard or voice in the choir. You can’t ask another nurse, internist, or surgeon if they have thoughts outside the approved narrative. Excommunication awaits those deviating from the “faith.”
No Modern Martin Luther, No GalileoMartin Luther is revered as a true member of the resistance to the tyranny of his time, but anyone who attempts to nail lists on the CDC’s “church” door shall be canceled, “losing their jobs, their professional standing, their health, friends and family, even their children,” to quote Transcriber B. Denied a voice for practicing what can only be called the 21st-century equivalent of witchcraft—a theory of motion outside the approved dogma of the day that challenges the true COVIDISM.
Whatever the matter, the response to such heresy is medieval. Or, perhaps a better comparison might be Colonial Salem, Feb 1692 – May 1693—another “notorious case of mass hysteria.” Except that the modern one has taken an interesting turn. The 21st-century Court of Oyer and Terminer has released to the public reams of modern digital scrolls outlining how, in detail, the anti-science deniers were correct. Plain as day, in black and white.
From the CDC, FDA, and public health bureaucrats. It is not a secret anymore. There was more than one person behind the curtain hiding important details, but expert pricks like Dr. Peter Hoetez continue to spew that which the divine source itself has been forced to admit were either half-truths or lies. You can also find it in ads funded by the State of New Hampshire on Gas Station TV. Pay too much for gas and get trolled by the NHDHHS. Get the latest COVID vaccine!
Sure, the suppressed science has been forced out of the dark by court order, but that does not mean that these Pharisees of public health need to read them out loud—quite the opposite. They continue to repeat their lies, and when challenged, they call you liars, frauds, racists, and murderers. Your choice is still their choice or their choice, despite your having a right to a second opinion. Even the website patient advocate.org assures you of the right to a second opinion, a site that appears to be another victim of COVID Cash capture.
It’s tragic.
And while there continue to be acknowledgments that the COVID pandemic could have been handled differently, very little of that finds its way out of the mouths of many doctors, researchers, and scientists who are supposed to question everything. Who, instead, refuse to be challenged because to do so could give credibility to other arguments—the opposite of science.
Ep. 6 Bobby Kennedy is winning pic.twitter.com/jW51PYahLV
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 22, 2023
..
The post You Are No Longer Entitled to a “Second Opinion”? appeared first on Granite Grok.
So, what happened during the Conway Public Library Drag Queen show held last Friday? My contact couldn’t make it inside the library to watch the proceedings because of “HATERS!!!” named Director David Smolen and White Mountains Pride Christopher Bellis. Why do I call them haters?
Because the advance notice said:
By increasing the visibility of materials and services for everyone in our community, we are establishing the library as a welcoming and inclusive center with free access to all ideas, without censorship or discrimination. By providing library users with the freedom to explore an array of viewpoints, we help them develop them into thoughtful citizens.
And as we saw in the previous post, for all of their word salads about equality, equity, inclusiveness, and welcoming, they are none of that. Plain frauds, these ones. The verbiage says one thing but as you saw in the video, it only goes just so far. The inclusiveness and the “welcomingness” only last until “The Narrative” is endangered as we saw how they “developed” an antipathy to those that possess other “ideas“.
Is “hypocritical haters” a more descriptive term?
But someone did get in and let slip what happened. And why would we all be surprised:
Costumes. Makeup.
This was reported as good as in “Look – kids having fun!” Groomers going, “Heh! Costumes? Makeup? Just like us, just like us.”
Did all of the parents catch the sub-messaging by “Reverend Yolanda” in “preaching to his new choir” in introducing a lifestyle/worldview/morality” that gets passed off as “reading children”? That’s right, him. Steve shared a good write-up on this pervert (all dolled up as an “artiste”); or, seeing that he calls himself a “Reverend,” is calling him a “missionary” a more descriptive term?
Roger Anthony Mapes 4 (Rev. Yolanda) was born in 1956 in the city of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He was raised as a Methodist, and then in 1974, he became an evangelical “Jesus Freak” and moved to a commune called Jesus Manor. He ended up leaving the faith to pursue a sinful homosexual relationship.
Mapes eventually went to theater school and moved to New York City in the early 90s, where he met a group called the Radical Faeries ; Mapes moved into a commune with them in 1993 in Vermont. The Radical Faeries are a worldwide network and counter-cultural movement seeking to redefine “queer consciousness” through “secular spirituality.” The Radical Faeries reject the classical understanding of men and women and the heterosexual relationship. They instead seek to destroy what they see as “hetero-imitation” by grooming children from an early age. They were born during the Sexual Revolution and grew rapidly under the supervision of communist Harry Hay, Don Kilhefner, and Mitchell Walker.
Adopting what totalitarian states have said throughout history, “We don’t need you – we’re taking your children”.
I have no idea what books were actually read on Friday, but one of Conway Public Library’s pages had a list:
I still have more, so we’ll do another iteration tomorrow. However, I will leave you with these from the “other side”: Critical Race Theory aimed at toddlers and in making recent parents guilty.
Really, we are supposed to listen to a Library that thinks it’s our Mommy and Daddy?
The post So About that Drag Queen at the Conway Public Library Last Friday…Part 2.1 (The Unsavory Bits) appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Somebody is lying… Either Merrick Garland has lied under oath to the Congress, or David Weiss lied to the IRS agents.” Fox News legal analyst Sol Wisenberg.
We want to thank Marc Abear for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
Yo can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
“Merrick Garland has testified that David Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware investigating Biden, had complete authority, more authority than even a special counsel did to do anything he wanted.” Wisenberg said to Laura Ingraham
It’s pretty simple. If Garland, as he claims. gave Weiss “complete authority” to bring a case against Hunter and “more authority” than even a Special Counsel, where is the written proof? Where is the letter from the AG designating Weiss as a special attorney under 28 USC 515(a)?
— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023
Weiss “told at least six witnesses last year that he lacked authority to charge the first son outside Delaware and was denied special counsel status.” whistleblower IRS supervisory special agent Gary Shapley.
Two simple questions for Weiss: 1. When the DC and CDCAL USATTYs denied your requests to bring charges in their respective districts, who did you go to within DOJ to ask for Special Counsel status? If not the AG, why didn’t you go to him directly after your request was denied?
— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023
Finally, did you lie to the IRS Special Agents when you told them on 10-7-22 that you were NOT the ultimate decision-maker? Did you lie when you told them you had been denied Special Counsel status?
— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023
It appears simple enough. Garland is the nation’s attorney general, and Weiss is the Delaware-based federal prosecutor who years ago was tasked with investigating Hunter Biden. And it seems to be a discrepancy that’s easy to sort out. Just bring them both before Congress… again. Ask them some pointed and specific questions. Then begin impeachment proceedings against the guy whose story doesn’t add up.
Ah ha, we’ve found the missing part of the American government today… accountability. Would you bet a cup of coffee on whether it happens?
The post Somebody’s Lying appeared first on Granite Grok.
Mikey Graham’s choice of words says much, much more about Mikey Graham than the person he is trying to demean and discredit. The proper description would be Sun-King Sununu’s illegal, unconstitutional, un-American actions repudiated by the court.
Instead, Mikey continues to LIE about the COVID vaccines that are NOT a vaccine and that Big Pharma always knew were NOT a vaccine.
Shame on Mikey Graham, and shame on anyone who still believes that Mikey and his ilk are “on our side.” He/they are NOT. They are grifters who – if Trump is the nominee – will support Biden, just as they supported Biden in 2020. AND they still have not apologized for … nor even acknowledged … that virtually all they said and did about COVID was not only not based on science, but egregiously wrong (indeed, in some cases EVIL) in terms of health, in terms of the economy and the rule of law. SHAME.
The post Hey Mikey … It’s Not A Vaccine … Stop Being A Shill For Big Pharma appeared first on Granite Grok.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that college admissions policies based on race are a no-go. The cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Harvard, for under-enrolling qualified Asian applicants while UNC was accused of failing to achieve diversity by other means.
Both schools take public money and must change their Admissions programs as a result of the decision.
“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the six-justice majority.
However, universities may still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. Roberts clarified that this does not mean universities can simply establish through application essays or other means the regime declared unlawful by the Court. It means, explained Roberts, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
Is it just me, or did the Court leave a backdoor for colleges and Universities to continue the practice of racist-based admissions?
The post Breaking: SCOTUS Strikes Down Affirmative Action Admission Policies appeared first on Granite Grok.
It all started in 2015, and it has taken almost eight years for Saifullah Khan, a former Yale student and an Afghan refugee whose family fled the Taliban, to see a glimmer of hope for justice.
We want to thank Claire Best for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
This past week, on the anniversary of the introduction of the 1972 introduction of Title IX, the Connecticut Supreme Court published a ruling against Yale University and a Jane Doe who had claimed immunity in a defamation suit brought by Saifullah Khan following a Title IX sexual assault disciplinary procedure which Yale claimed was “quasi-judicial”: Jane Doe had claimed Saifullah Khan raped her and Yale took her at her word and sided with her against Khan without calling witnesses he had put forward in his defense of the accusations.
CT Supreme Court: “Statements made in sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings that are offered and accepted without adequate procedural safeguards carry too great a risk of unfair or unreliable outcomes.”
Yale accuser not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. pic.twitter.com/wcnVXNRGMX— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) June 23, 2023
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the Title IX disciplinary procedure which caused Saifullah Khan to be deprived of his Yale education was not “quasi-judicial” because it failed to offer Khan his due process rights which included, inter alia, the ability to cross-examine his accuser — something he had been granted in a criminal sexual assault trial stemming from allegations by the same Jane Doe. Khan was acquitted of all charges by a criminal jury, but Yale held its own standards, which it claimed were “quasi-judicial” and yet had no legal standing.
Fifteen women’s and victim’s rights non-profits, which included Legal Momentum, the National Women’s Law Center, Futures without Violence, the National Crime Victims’ Law Institute, Know Your IX, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, wrote an amicus brief in support of Jane Doe’s immunity for making false statements.
Khan-v-Yale-et-al-amicus-brief-AS-FILED-6.17.22
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected their amicus brief. The full list of organizations that supported Jane Doe and her false accusations is here:
Several of these organizations had also supported Amber Heard, who was successfully sued by Johnny Depp for defamation in a civil suit in 2022. Amber Heard claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse and sexual violence in an Op-Ed written for her by the ACLU and published in the Washington Post in December 2018.
The ACLU then partnered with one of the organizations included in the list above — Know Your IX — to sue Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. They didn’t think the due process in sexual assault cases on campus was appropriate. They lost the case, but campuses still didn’t fully embrace her new standards requiring due process. Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign promised to revert to the 2011 unregulated standards. He believes those who believe in due process are like “Nazis marching on Charlottesville.”
These women’s and victims’ rights organizations have been fast and loose with their language — so much so that they had to refile their amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court for Jane Doe in Khan v Yale because their first one stated that Khan “raped” Jane Doe.
Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that amicus brief outright since Khan had been acquitted of all charges, including rape, in a criminal trial. Facts haven’t mattered to these groups, and they toss the word “rape” around like cotton candy in Disneyland. One of the reasons they toss it around is because it is a word that draws sensationalist attention for # engagement which is always good for major brand advertisers/sponsors tied to them, such as L’Oreal (and its multiple global brands under it).
Now that Yale is facing a $110 million defamation suit and so is Jane Doe, perhaps these organizations will think before they support, encourage, or recruit the next Jane Doe or Amber Heard for their lucrative false accusation industry. They harm women’s credibility and agency. They do not help it.
Cancel culture on college campuses and in high schools and the denial of due process for Saifullah Khan at Yale are all connected, as is the censorship of media and social media and the use of Government-backed propaganda to create fake rape narratives (harming many real victims of sexual assault in the process).
The University of New Hampshire should be held accountable because it all started there:
Cancel culture on campus and Saifullah’s deprivation of his civil rights would not have happened if Vice President Joe Biden had not introduced an unregulated federal directive “Dear Colleague” Title IX letter at the University of New Hampshire on April 4, 2011.
This unregulated directive spawned Kangaroo Courts. “Ambassadors” and “influencers” (posing as journalists) were engaged by the White House & non-profit affiliates to promote propaganda and silence dissenters. The PR money was flowing to journalists at every major publication: New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Teen Vogue, Glamour Magazine, The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily Mail, BuzzFeed, and The Daily Beast, to name a few. NBC, CBS, and CNN especially were also partnered to promote the “rape culture” narrative. It was used to get women voters engaged and to the polls (for female Democrat candidates only, however).
UNH was providing guidelines to the White House that made preposterous biased assumptions using faulty statistics and propaganda.
The University of New Hampshire was in a strategic partnership with the White House “Not Alone” task force headed by Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s Chief of Staff. But also involved were the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women, and the Department of Defense. All of whom have been silent on Larry Nassar, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Hunter Biden.
The money flowed from the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women and others to non-profits working with political PR firms who, in turn, would help get journalists to place sensationalist and untrue tales of rape on campus in magazines and newspapers. The UN was part of it as well — Emma Watson was recruited as the ambassador to influence “the Harry Potter” generation.
It was nothing short of a profiteering and racketeering industry that boosted the ratings of young female Ivy League graduates such as Alexandra Brodsky with political or book publishing goals in their future.
Hopefully, with Saifullah Khan’s historic win in the Connecticut Supreme Court, victims’ rights activists who promote “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training or who drink Brett Sokolow’s cool-aid will think twice before continuing with this or with the “Believe women” false accusation industry.
Yale and Jane Doe are facing a defamation suit in which Saifullah Khan is seeking $110 million for being labeled a rapist and denied the tools with which to defend himself.
Khan’s attorney Norm Pattis criticized Yale’s methods in a January 2019 blog post.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that the process Yale used to engage in its fact-finding was fatally flawed,” Pattis said in the post.
The University of New Hampshire’s Prevention Innovation Research Center was recognized for entrepreneurship with the creation of “Soteria Solutions” to teach “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training. Lyn Schollett, JD of the NHCADSV, is on the board.
“Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training were heralded by the NHCADSV at Phillips Exeter Academy and St Paul’s School in New Hampshire.
Vanity Fair highlighted the failures of “Bystander” training in “Mr. Weber’s Confession.” The genius of the training -for which UNH received millions in federal grants to create — led to a retired school teacher being framed for a sexual assault that his “victim” said never happened.
For all the federal grants the University of New Hampshire has received to study sexual, domestic violence, and child abuse, it can’t even address problems of such on the home front both on its own campus and in its State Youth Detention Center.
It’s time the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice (who funded UNH’s flawed research and training), Department of Education, and Department of Defense (with whom RAINN is tied) take a hard look at the violations of constitutional rights that the University of New Hampshire in partnership with the Obama White House introduced on April 4, 2011, and which were used to influence not only campus disciplinary procedures but also police criminal procedures.
It’s also time for the New Hampshire Bar to question the New Hampshire Criminal Courts and Police and ask why it was ever appropriate for them to take instruction from Laura L Dunn, Joe Biden’s VIP guest to the launch of “Dear Colleague” in 2011 and a representative for the White House “Not Alone” task force.
Laura L Dunn instructed Concord Police at UNH, and Concord Police referred Chessy Prout (according to Chessy Prout’s “memoir” with an introduction by Congresswoman Ann Kuster — “I Have The Right To” and promoted by Dan Hill of hillimpact.com boasting his work in securing over $21 billion in Government contracts for his clients) — Owen Labrie’s accuser to Laura Dunn in Spring 2015, 5 months before his high profile criminal sexual assault trial.
Unlike Saifullah Khan’s journey through the sexual assault sham, there was no Title IX investigation to put in abeyance while the criminal procedure played out in Owen Labrie’s case, which started one year earlier than Khan’s in 2014:
Concord Police had told St Paul’s School to stay out of it, to not let Owen Labrie know he was being investigated. According to the trial transcript, they advised his mother and him that there was no need for him to have an attorney present while they questioned him. But they had already recommended Laura L Dunn of the White House “Not Alone” task force and affiliated non-profit SurvJustice to Chessy Prout before they even contacted Owen Labrie in June 2014. They’d taken their instruction from Laura L Dunn, a lackey for Vice President Joe Biden, and she brought with her media, journalists, and an entourage of victims advocates and civil attorneys ready to go after St Paul’s School’s money off the back of the trial.
I was so, so lucky that the detective who interviewed me while I was laying in a hospital bed had just gotten back from a conference where they had worked on how to talk to and interview survivors of sexual assault. That was pretty serendipitous. She connected us with a wonderful attorney and advocate named Laura Dunn, who, when the trial came around, basically held my hand.
(It should be noted that on her way to the hospital, Chessy Prout texted Owen Labrie to say that things were getting out of hand. She’d told her sister that she never said she’d been raped, and the police wrote that statement down. But the police detective told her not to worry about the details and to not discuss anything with anyone, including her mother, for the “integrity” of the investigation. There was none. The police detective lied on a sworn affidavit about the report from the SANE nurse and used that to get an arrest warrant for computer communications which she then selectively redacted and tampered with. Where did she learn all of this?)
Laura L Dunn has been extremely vocal about her belief that due process is not appropriate in campus sexual assault cases. So what was she doing spreading this belief to police and prosecutors as well for criminal procedures?
Laura L Dunn was promoting her own business as an ambulance-chasing attorney for “victims,” and she needed to shop for them, train them and train police & prosecutors for her own self-advancement, which went hand in hand with the victim’s rights groups who could also profiteer from this business. She publicly stated that she wanted to be “Gloria Allred big.”
“I’m always mad that we’re not bigger,” said Dunn, matter-of-factly. “I want to be Gloria Allred big. People know if your civil rights get violated, you go to the ACLU. I want people to know if you get raped, you go to SurvJustice.”
And she had Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama, his chief of staff Valerie Jarrett, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (Catherine Lhamon), and the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (Lynn Rosenthal) behind her as well as her mentor: S. Daniel Carter.
Nobody cared that Laura L Dunn had lied about her own alleged sexual assault on NPR in 2010, which they finally corrected five years later in 2015.
On the board of SurvJustice with Laura L Dunn was Wagatwe Wanjuki — a social media influencer — and Meg Garvin of the National Crime Victims Law Institute, which featured Dunn as a “partner spotlight” in November 2014 — the same month she promoted the false Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” story which led to the defamation suit Eramo v Rolling Stone (featuring Dunn in Exhibit 15b).
New Hampshire (“First in the Nation,” “Live Free or Die”) police and prosecutors swallowed Laura L Dunn’s instruction hook, line, and sinker to undermine their own criminal trial procedures. There was a ton of money on offer to them for doing so. The coffers filled quickly: Merrimack County Attorney (later US Attorney for New Hampshire and now Federal Prosecutor Scott Murray) called New Hampshire v Owen Labrie “A Victory for Victim’s Rights.” He was awarded “Prosecutor of the Year.” The National Crime Victim’s Law Institute who supported the false accuser Jane Doe in the amicus brief against Saifullah Khan and rewarded Concord Police Detective Julie Curtin in the investigation of Owen Labrie for “justice for the victim.” The judge, Larry Smukler, also pronounced “justice for the victim”. He’d decided to ignore prosecutor and police misconduct which were blatantly evident in the trial transcript.
We should not have any public funds going towards flawed sexually biased programs at the University of New Hampshire or elsewhere, which are then used to target, frame, profiteer, and racketeer and deny the assumption of innocence, a constitutional right.
Sharyn Potter, Executive Director of UNH Prevention Innovation Research Center, doesn’t hide her gender bias: She lists herself as a “Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies University of New Hampshire.”
Title IX’s language below is crystal clear against such bias. What were the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women & Department of Education, White House “Not Alone” task force thinking, and why isn’t there a Senate inquiry into this?
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
| Claire Best
The post False Rape Accusers Beware: Defamation Suit Against Jane DOE & Yale University Can Proceed appeared first on Granite Grok.
Before you squawk, I’ve advocated for ending the state’s gasoline tax. Gone. I got pushback from Libertarians and Republicans, but I’m still a fan of the idea. Having said that, there is a growing siren song in some states for mileage taxes.
If you like to rob people, it is a great idea: taxes, mileage taxes, it’s all theft.
The vehicle mileage tax is a response to the Democrat idea that we should all be driving EVs or not driving at all. Democrats also like to hike fuel taxes ‘cuz reasons, but the growing fleet of climate-killing, extra-heavy-road-wearing EVs don’t pay it. The idea is to shift to a per-mile tax that accurately represents wear and use for infrastructure upkeep.
If that’s where we are headed, I have some conditions. Much like my belief that EV users should only be able to charge their vehicles with renewable power, only EVs should have to pay the mileage tax. This is not unreasonable because no one is ever going to end the motor fuel taxes, not even Republicans and Libertarians.
Related: Anyone Who Supports Net-Zero Should Be Required to Address These Concerns (And Not Just Because They Can’t)
So have at it. Pass a mileage TAX on EVs. They weigh a lot more and cause a lot more road wear. While you’re at it, might I suggest a separate carbon tax paid annually when drivers register their vehicles to cover the end-of-life cost to manage the waste-stream burden of a vehicle sized used up lithium pack? Aside from the front-end carbon footprint of mining, milling, moving, and manufacturing costs (plus local environmental damage), what to do with the discarded heart of your EV corpse represents a significant ecological burden/hazard.
Wait. We also need “risk of EV fire” fees. When those things burn, Fire Departments have no easy way to extinguish them. You’ve more or less banned the foam they used to use, so we’re left with containment while the EV emits insane amounts of crap into the air from burning plastic, fabric, electronics, metal, and – oh yeah, the rare earth metals melting down and exhausting into the biosphere from the battery pack.
Maybe another fee for emissions insurance that can launder money through carbon-offset schemes that promise to plant trees along the equator, by which they mean “might cut fewer of them down.”
While we continue to ignore or avoid similar environmental threats created by solar panels, if you can get ahead of this now, you can have a healthy set aside to rob blindly to balance other irresponsible acts of budget abuse while pretending you planned ahead.
The post For Those Pushing a State Vehicle Mileage Tax, I’ve got Some Thoughts … appeared first on Granite Grok.
You can hear the whistles blowing, and the trap around the Biden Cartel is closing because FOX News is no longer the only voice in the choir singing about the sins of the Biden Family.
After years of defending or ignoring the apparent bribery and extortion cases involving the Bidens, the tone and talking points are changing. They are going to force each other to stay focused. The MSM does nothing individually. It is all in or out, and today, they are in.
The temperature has risen in the White House Briefing Room. This past week, when usually the only news team pressing Karine Jean-Pierre was FOX, numerous reporters were pressing KJP. Karine is doing a terrible job of deflecting questions about the ties and crimes of Joe and Hunter. She continues to claim that her colleagues have already addressed the question. The reality is that all spokespeople for the White House are deflecting. The most transparent White House has pulled the shades down, which is not a good look in the dark.
The mistruths(lies) that come out of this White House are infinite. Whether it is misrepresenting the facts about the economy, inflating the production and value of Kamala Harris, or outright lying about the President’s knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings, there is no credibility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a severe problem. I want to believe that we had no part in the attempted coup of Vladimir Putin, but when Biden addresses the country, urging us to believe this was an internal Russian issue, we cannot believe him. That is unfortunate.
Six IRS whistleblowers have come forward to give their version of the facts. The FBI and Justice Department are hard-pressed to dispel the stories. These six individuals are pressured to tell the truth or face the consequences of the law. They have all been consistent, making it more difficult for the government to shoot holes in their testimony. This situation poses a tremendous problem for the Bidens. The stories of the IRS slow-rolling the investigation, not applying the full impact of the law, and cutting deals that never would be available to anyone not named Biden.
In addition to the whistleblowers, Comer, Jordan, and Grassley are heading up three investigations on separate committees. All have indicated and promised damaging testimony that will connect the money with the Bidens. These investigations’ outcome must be Joe Biden receiving money and not just a tax evasion violation. The Republicans, the press corp, and the mainstream media are the three-headed monster that has to be giving the Bidens nightmares and JKP more reasons not to answer questions.
The post Hey Joe, Those Whistles Blowing Are Not An Amtrak appeared first on Granite Grok.
We’ve had three named storms in June. Arlene and Bret didn’t get very far, and while Cindy managed to rise to the level of a Tropical storm, she gave up a few days ago just north of the Dominican Republic.
This year’s third named storm fell apart and is drifting aimlessly toward Bermuda. There is still an opportunity for her to get her groove on, but it’s low, and as she moves north into colder water, the fuel required becomes scarce.
NOAA has predicted 12-17 named storms for the 2023 season from June 1 to November 30, 5-9 Hurricanes, and 1-4 major hurricanes. A normal hurricane season. That’s probably a safer guess after last year. Hurricane NOAA predicted an above-average season for 2022 that never happened. They missed by a country mile.
This year scientists are certain that they are uncertain.
After three hurricane seasons with La Nina present, NOAA scientists predict a high potential for El Nino to develop this summer, which can suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. El Nino’s potential influence on storm development could be offset by favorable conditions local to the tropical Atlantic Basin.
Maybe, maybe not. But we are doomed by 2050 or wherever the goalposts got moved to after the last jet-setting, carbon-intensive climate cult conference. Being uncertain about that is to deny science.
As for Cindy, the hurricane, not the youngest Brady Girl; she’s the green smear in the middle of the Atlantic.
Not much to look at, and so far, most of the action has been in the Pacific, off the coast of Mexico.
Maybe those storms will spin up and try to migrate across our open southern border.
The post ICYMI The Atlantic Hurricane Season Is Almost One Month Old, And So Far … appeared first on Granite Grok.
“He is the smartest person I know” and “My son did nothing illegal, and I am proud of him” are two comments that President Joe Biden made about his son, Hunter Biden. Those comments came when the Joe Biden camp tried to justify the $80,000 monthly salary given to Hunter by Ukraine energy company Burisma. Hunter had no experience in the energy sector but was named to the Burisma Board shortly after a trip to Ukraine with then Vice President Joe Biden. Hunter did not have a lot of investment expertise, yet received billions of dollars to invert for the Chinese Government. This transfer of funds also coincided with a trip to China with his father, Vice President Joe Biden. Biden and his associates worked daily to convince Americans that his son was more intelligent enough to handle the rigors of these complex jobs.
About a year ago, the story and talking points had to change. The Administration was forced into defense mode as facts and whistleblower testimony came into focus. With the advent of this damning information, the Administration had to find a way to deflect the facts. The people going on the record were credible and could not be put down, so they had to discredit Hunter by pointing out he was an alcoholic drug addict at this point in his life and could not be held responsible for his words or actions.
You cannot have it both ways, but you cannot claim no masse on the allocations of bribes, shakedowns, and extortion while declaring the perpetrator a genius. This is a classic conundrum of the Biden White House. The stories are never consistent, and you can never trust any statement from Biden or White House spokespeople. Leadership is based on trust and consistency. Neither of these traits is present in the Biden White House.
Each day, more information is disclosed by the whistleblowers that indicate a collusive effort between the White House and the Justice Department to change the narrative of all stories involving Hunter Biden. The whistleblowers face stiff penalties for dispersing false information, so you have to give them the edge on credibility. Each statement released is damaging to all Bidens and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland is in the crosshairs, and talk of impeachment proceedings against the AG may be forthcoming.
There were reports over the weekend that the Bidens had added a criminal defense attorney to their legal team. That is an absolute admission that the walls are crumbling in, and the hearings, indictments, and potential charges are forthcoming. The tactic of avoiding questions by Joe and Karine may stop working soon, as the people insist on answers and the media realizes they must stop covering for the first family. When that finally happens to the mainstream media, the Bidens should start packing up their personal effects.
]\
The post Hunter Biden: Genius Or Incoherent Addict appeared first on Granite Grok.
It was a slow weekend, with nothing on the calendar, but I caught an email telling me one of our Presidential candidates would be in Alton Sunday evening. I said, “What the heck – why not?” Vivek Ramaswamy was/is a little-known candidate, but like I said, “What the heck, I’ll go” (By the way, the cookies were great).
Cutting to the chase, Vivek was introduced by his wife, who, by any judgment, would make a stunning First Lady. Okay, I know this young man (age 37) is a virtual newcomer to big-time politics and is only poling maybe 3% while Trump is pushing near 60%. Not a chance, really?
Still, I was blown away, Mr. Ramaswamy has a presence and composure equal to or better than the far more experienced candidates twice his age. After his opening remarks, he took questions with no hesitation or evasion, proving that he has a solid grip on the issues and plans to deal with them. I’ve been around the block, closer to 81 than 80, so believe me when I tell you he is the real deal. Although overcoming polling leads of the many better-known candidates may not be a reasonable expectation but how about you give the guy a chance? Or at least a look?
Sure, I am impressed, but I’ll make no promises or outrageous predictions but invite you to go and meet him.
I know that as a Constitutional conservative, he checked all my boxes, So if you’re a conservative or moderate Republican or independent fed up with the Lefty Democrats’ make-believe realities and lawless double standards, you will welcome the fresh air he provides.
Can he win the NH primary? I don’t know. Does it really matter? The way I felt listening to him was a mental vision of Donald Trump as Obi-Wan and Vivek as the new hope.
The post The Real Deal – Vivek Ramaswamy appeared first on Granite Grok.
In case you missed it, Terese Grinnell (Bastarche) has had the charges dropped against her. New Hampshire State Police arrested her for “disrupting” an Executive Council Meeting – a ridiculous accusation and a story regular readers know well.
A video of the entire event was available since the day of the arrest (here’s a short excerpt). Anyone who watches it can tell the whole exercise was harassment and intimidation (even members of the governor’s staff could see it, I suspect).
Terese was not about to stand by and put up with either.
She eventually subpoenaed Governor Sununu as a witness. The judge quashed the subpoena, claiming it was delivered too late as if this was somehow more unfair than being escorted out of a crowded public meeting for saying Amen, and having to pay lawyers and legal fees because of His Excellencies’ petty vendetta.
No way he’s taking the stand under oath, and that’s sad. Sununu says he has big shoulders, but this guy had someone who was legally carrying arrested for trespassing on his lawn with a firearm. Pro-Gun Big Shoulders Sununu then canceled his outdoor inauguration just in case any gun nuts might disrupt the occasion.
It was a whiney little d!ck move, and here’s another one. The baggage that needs unpacking.
New Hampshire Journal has an article on Grinnell’s charges being dropped. The headline is “Charges Dropped Against Anti-Vax Protester on Eve of Court Date.”
Anti-Vax protester. How incredibly clever. Sorry, I misspelled ignorant narrative stooge. What moron labels a nurse an anti-vaxxer? And we know they knew she was a nurse.
Terese has had many nursing jobs and has given just about every “vaccine” to people who have consented to receive them. She has received vaccines herself over her life. She explained to me that her family got the COVID vaccines.
That didn’t bother her, probably because she has administered hundreds, if not thousands, of injections of all types to people of all ages. Calling her an anti-vax protester is absurd and dishonest, and just wrong. It panders to a false progressive narrative, not unlike the claims that protecting children from sexualized age-inappropriate material is book banning. It’s not.
The correct modifier for Grinnell is anti-mandate. She objected to policies that ruined people’s lives and shared several stories with me of people in health care. Nurses who had exemptions- legitimate exceptions – denied that cost them their jobs. In at least one instance, it put a home, family, and their access to health insurance at risk, not to mention on the cusp of financial ruin.
The mandates affected many in that way.
Mortgages and bills don’t pay themselves. The mandates she opposed put a lot of people in dire straights. Turned their lives upside down. That was what she opposed.
So, I’m curious to know more about whoever wrote the NH Journal piece. Did they get both jabs, all three boosters, and the bivalent? Did they skip one or more because they thought, I don’t need that, and if so, why aren’t they an anti-vaxxer? The experts said you needed it, and you, at some point, said no.
Vaccine-hesitant?
So yes, we’d love to know, but the by-line is NewsNHJ. The author’s name is unknown, much like the vaccine’s side effects that were hidden in contradiction to informed consent law as they were yelling about mandates, testing, pushing passports, and lining people up to get jabbed.
The things that Terese Grinnell actually opposed that you wouldn’t know from the NH Journal piece.
We’re happy to have cleared it up.
The post Charges Dropped Against Terese Grinnell – And a Quibble with NH Journal appeared first on Granite Grok.
It’s a GREAT question. Why?
But first, this is from Dan himself for context:
OF COURSE, it’s a constitutional crisis.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday, in Moore v. Harper, comes the day after I filed my case with the NH State Supreme Court (docket # 2023-0097), which is the same theme and argument in Richard v. Sununu, et al. now before the Court.
Under stare decisis the NH Supreme Court will now be bound by the SCOTUS opinion in Moore v. Harper, causing a constitutional crisis in NH, as this case validates my complaints in my lawsuit.
SCOTUSBlog has a quick background and why it applies to Dan’s case
In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. By a vote of 6-3, the court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” holding that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution when it set aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature.
Daily Signal has more:
Justices ruled 6-3 Tuesday in Moore v. Harper to reject the “independent state legislature theory,” the idea that legislatures have unrestricted power under the Constitution to administer federal elections without review from state courts.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s elections clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in February 2022 to toss a congressional map drawn by the Republican-led legislature after the 2020 census as “an egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander.”
“State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause,” Roberts wrote. “But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution.”
Since 2019, Dan Richard has been waging a one-man skirmish in the election arena – what are the rules, how did they get to be, and why are we having such a problem with out-of-state voters (mostly college students who pay out-of-state tuition, go figure)? And more importantly, how can the Constitution be “amended” by mere State Statute/law instead of by the mandated Constitutional process on which We, the People, make that decision? Instead, our elected legislators, over time, made the incremental changes by passing bills that bypassed that Constitutional process.
While it can take many to do a wrong by consensus, it only takes one person to do the right thing by being persistent. That’s Dan. But this asks the most important question:
Why did legislators do so (an effort that has taken place over 50 years) to change NH election law by statute rather than doing the right thing in properly amending the NH Constitution? That we may never know, but in having the Judiciary put on the spot for their results, perhaps these legislative wrongs can be righted. From Dan:
After a lot of work, and help from others, my appeal to the NH Supreme Court was filed today. Please share far and wide as all of our constitutional rights are being violated. All of my complaints are unresolved and still law;
- Amending the constitution by fraud;
- Unconstitutional voting machines;
- Unconstitutional, illegal absentee voting (no affidavits);
- Allowing unqualified out of state residents to vote
Here is his NH Supreme Court appeal petition (it is meaty):
Dan Richard – NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT-2And the appendix with the supporting information:
Dan Richard – APPENDIX PDF copyWe wish him well and hope to be in the courtroom for the hearing on this. And in talking with him a few minutes ago, as of this writing, there will be a lot more on this.
The post Dan Richard – How Did Our “Employees” Get To Write the Rules on How They Get Re-Elected? appeared first on Granite Grok.