Monday • April 29 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XVIII
Manchester, N.H.
Joseph Mercola, writing in the Epoch Times, shares some interesting insights (not all his own) into the ongoing problem of mass murder. The apparent truth is that even the unhinged have the sense to choose soft targets.
“According to the Crime Prevention Research Center,4 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in ‘gun-free zones’ – and ‘gun-free zones’ are the epitome of the core philosophical tenet of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence…”
Resistance isn’t futile. The mere presumption that it could exist keeps would-be shooters from choosing locations where people might shoot back. The common-sense response is to expand the spaces where that seems likely. The Left’s position, almost always being to do the opposite of what makes sense, is to create safe spaces for shooters, not citizens or their children.
And to then punish the law-abiding for the acts of criminals.
“…to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.” -Jeff Snyder
It is plain enough language that points to simple a truth, but what follows might surprise a few. Mercola explores the possible link between drugs used to treat mental health (depression more specifically) and the rise of mass shootings.
The fact is, depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants.
…
How can we possibly ignore the connection between rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings? Suicidal ideation, violence and homicidal ideation are all known side effects of these drugs. Sometimes, the drugs disrupt brain function so dramatically the perpetrator can’t even remember what they did.
Every time someone shoots up some soft target, the conversation shifts to punishing the law-abiding (rights and liberties based solely upon the conduct of criminals) and calls for more money to address issues related to mental health.
What if the problem is not so much Mental Health as it is how we treat it?
Mercola has more to say about it here if you’re interested.
The post 97.8% of Mass Shootings Occur in Gun-Free Zones appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’ve written a lot, over the years, on both the plunging quality of “journalism” as well as the skyrocketing uplift of the naked partisanship of those “journalists”. Here, thanks to Wokeness, it’s a twofer!
Don’t blame the person doing the lies and demand personal accountability and responsibility. Blame the hollowed-out newsroom staff.
You just can’t make this up. I maintain that it wasn’t that the newspaper’s standards were too high but that they weren’t high enough! As always, reformatted, emphasis mine:
Journalism professor suggests young reporters fabricate stories because of racism, high standards
In a long Twitter thread on Thursday, a Marquette University assistant professor of journalism suggested young reporters may fabricate stories because newspaper journalism standards are too high and because minority reporters might feel racism on the job.
“In my few years as a journalism educator, I’ve found that the younglings engage in unethical practices (ie, fabricating quotes, etc.) mostly out of desperation mixed with inexperience,” wrote Dr. Ayleen Cabas-Mijares, who describers herself as a “Critical/Cultural and Feminist Media scholar” in her Twitter biography. “Their failure to meet standards says as much about the unmanageable pressure they deal with and the little support/guidance they have as their personal shortcomings,” she wrote.
Yep, hitting all the right buttons to excuse someone from doing their due diligence in working in that field. Just have to love the word choices: standards, minority, desperation, failure, PRESSURE! Nice word as well: “younglings”; as Howie Carr would say, “just a yute [youth]” even as the rest of us, knowing that having graduated from college, Gabriela Miranda was an adult. Thus, we all must have pity for her as that’s what we do with children.
Anything except the phrase “deliberately lying.” Not a single thing about the person making stuff out of whole cloth – but the company that took that “youngling” in certainly took it on the chin, right? And racism covers everything nowadays, doesn’t it?
It’s never about shortcomings and not being the person unsuitable for the position. It’s never about the willingness and deliberate decisions to cut corners or engage in that “unethical” behavior, is it? Oh, oops, should have read further down – I missed a word!
The Marquette professor acknowledged that Miranda had made “huge, reprehensible mistakes” but also laid the blame at the feet of USA Today for having journalistic standards.
“Plug someone like Miranda, a young woman from a minoritized community trying to make it in a big (white) newsroom, and you get a recipe for failure,” Cabas-Mijares wrote.
The non-apology apology because this Ph.D. Professor is doing the two-step blame game – sure, “reprehensible,” but dontcha just love the “blame transference” to the company that was paying her to be truthful? And at the same time, is Cabas-Mijares suggesting that young Latinas from marginalized communities aren’t capable of high performances under pressure?
I guess that frosts me the most – that because of your skin color, your name, your ethnicity, where you come from – you’re already a loser. That’s both nauseating and a display of really low standards. Even a cub reporter (I guess all but this one) understand that you just don’t make stuff up:
USA Today said the investigation into Miranda began with an “external correction request” several weeks ago. The investigation then broadened to nearly two-dozen stories Miranda had written.
“The audit revealed that some individuals quoted were not affiliated with the organizations claimed and appeared to be fabricated,” USA Today said in a statement. “The existence of other individuals quoted could not be independently verified. In addition, some stories included quotes that should have been credited to others.”
So the Prof decided to blame one of the largest newspapers in the country (I’d read it when staying at a hotel on business) for the decisions of its reporter? Nonsense!
The moral here is that Wokeness, in the form of the Democrat Party’s Identity Group Political Totem Pole, rips away any sensibility of “just do your job”. Myriad excuses then come forth in trying to cover any malfeasance. Always the victim should trump any ideas that we should expect truthful reporting.
Consistency? While USA Today did the right thing (finally), those that are teaching new journalists have imbibed the Woke Kool-aid – and then teach these “childrent” that “it ain’t your fault if you get caught.” NOTHING in the piece gave me the impression of what should be a heavy dose of “you screwed up – and you deserved it.”
And as long as this continues:
Ok. Yes. Gabriela Miranda made huge, reprehensible mistakes and is facing the consequences. However, we should spend more time critiquing newsroom and corporate leaders at USA Today. Here’s why
— Dr. Ayleen Cabas-Mijares (@ayleen_cabas) June 17, 2022
It’s going to continue. Instead of “critiquing newsroom and corporate leaders at USA Today” (those white racists!!!!), how about going after Miranda’s profs with attitudes like yours that hand out “freedom from blame hall passes” like candy to kindergartners at Halloween?
And they wonder why their stock prices, pay rates, and subscription numbers keep going down.
(H/T: The College Fix)
The post Newbie Journalist Makes up Stories, Newspaper Fires Her, Journalist Professor Mad at Newspaper appeared first on Granite Grok.
I know this is going to be published at the end of the day – we’re getting so many submissions that by the time I can start writing in the morning, almost all our slots are filled. The purpose of this post is to say that Fathers are the problem in America today. No, not that they ARE the problem but that they are LACKING in our society. Too many kids are growing up without them.
Society no longer really celebrates them anymore for the work they should be doing – so they either check out or disappear. Why SHOULD they be sticking around?
LBJ, with his Great Society and the regulations in “fighting the War on Poverty” basically threw them out of all the low income families. A rational father and husband, seeing that the Government would supply the basic necessities to his wife and children, would make the decision to leave. Government’s message was “they’ll be better off without you”. And many ended up better if you only examined the physical wellbeing. And with Government programs, those young children remained children, dependent on something rather than on a Dad (e.g., Obamacare that turned those that should be self-reliant by 26 to still see themselves dependent).
What was left unsaid by these “helps” was a Father’s most important role.
Feminists, too, piled on. As that movement went from the First, to the Second, onward to the Third, and now the Fourth Feminist Wave, made it clear that men, but especially husbands and fathers, were no longer needed. Men used to be seen as the home’s leader, the provider, and the protector. Feminists, adding to the Great Society, used the media to dispel and denigrate that role that men served for centuries. But now Government filled that provider role of food on the table, roof over the head, clothes on the back, child care, medical care…what was left?
Like Gloria Steinem made popular: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. Media pounced as well with sitcoms and commercials showing how useless and inept husbands and fathers were to the well being of families. Court systems, too, sided against fathers in custody and divorce proceedings and men were left, often, without visitation rights and their money and good stripped from them.
Women were uplifted from their career second place spots – that kind of equal pay for equal work for equal talents and equal drive was a long time coming and well deserved. What came afterwards, was not. Boys were looked upon as problems as they didn’t act like girls in the lower grades, especially as men left the teaching roles in the lower grades. For many young boys, that may have been the only male role model in their lives…now gone. But, the emphasis on girls, who were portrayed as victims, really outstripped the attention shown to those young-men-to-be.
Think I’m wrong? Look at all the programs dedicated to helping young girls in school and outside of it. They did achieve their purpose – but at what costs to those men-in-training? It came home to me in looking at the “Top 10” pictures of the 2022 High School graduates. My town had no males. Most of the schools had one, two, or maybe three in that group.
My, how the tide has shifted. For quite some time, women are the largest cohort in colleges and graduate schools. They receive a lion’s share of the degrees. Male participation is dropping like a rock as Administrations, staff, Professors, and female and political advocacy group blame these now young men as the problem. Each one is a possible rapist on campus, all too willing to commit some level of harrassment or assault. Preference is manifest toward females, not only in the ‘gender studies’ but in the ‘soft sciences’ (e.g. sociology, psychology, and the like) in addition to the tradition study programs (e.g., teaching, nursing, O.T., P.T.). And men are now being set upon in the traditional male studies of STEM as misogynist, homophobic, and are put upon in other ways.
Slowly but surely, de facto “affirmative action” hiring processes grew into place. Human Resource Departments are now mostly female (and Woke), so the message continues.
And what’s the result?
A lack of fathers. A lack of fathers that results in a failure to teach BOTH their boys and girls those things, those ideas, those values, that are best taught by men (and sometimes ONLY by men as women can’t know what it is like to be a good man (and visa versa) who are a big part in their kids’ lives. I know, I’m going to catch a lot of grief over that but I don’t care. Rant at me because there isn’t really much else you can do.
FAILURE to have that strong male role model in a young boy’s life is what has brought us to this place in Society where teens and young adult males are savages at worst, rebellious in the middle, and totally dropped out/tuned out at the worst. Not having the values of GOOD masculinity inculcated into their souls by Fathers who were taught themselves by a long line of their predecessors is giving us the Society we see around us: drug addicts that don’t love themselves, guys that have no purpose, males that don’t have even a modicum of manners and respect towards others, and just float through their lives only caring about themselves. While the stereotype is that of them down in their Mommy’s basement playing video games in unhygienic conditions and having no friends, how has that been constructed?
How did we get “heah from theah”?
Again, if you couldn’t guess – Fathers. Masculine Fathers. Fathers willing to be that role model that is willing to hold that small child to his breast in comforting them to switching in a heartbeat to one that is stern, forceful, and unwilling to compromise on standards that his sons HAVE to meet to be both good citizens and great fathers in their turn. Duty, Honor, Courage, Sacrifice, Promises kept, Provider, Protector, the guy on the sideline exhorting his player son to “GO! YOU CAN DO THAT!”. To love God, knowing that someday you WILL be judged for your actions and beliefs, that you are NOT the most important person in the world (except to your family) be chivalrous, rightly knowing Right from Wrong, respect for LAWFUL authority, showing deference to elders, learning inquisitiveness, what is self-reliance and self-sufficiency, to stand up to bullies, to defend oneself, learn to cook and do house chores, learn the value of money ad the show up/stick-to-it-ism/work ethic to earn it, to be fair, assess situations, always have a plan, learn to have situational awareness, learn about our country’s founding and history, learn how to handle money, quick to be patient, be intolerant of “wrongness”, stand up for and by your friends. That loyalty counts in a friendship. And much, MUCH more.
And then, as time rolls on, know how to morph from being that Dad to being both a friend and a mentor as they grow into their adulthood.
And you treat your wife as the Gift from God that she is.
All these things that I was never taught and had to learn it on my own with tons of mistakes along the way; I had no father in my life growing up. I intimately know the consequences of that lack due to divorce, failure to put oneself second and kids first, and the bitterness surrounding a young boy as the family dissolved in slow motion.
No, Fathers ARE needed – and more desperately now than ever. No society that depends on government can be successful, no matter what is said. Success is bred from within a family. I write these words not to dismiss the work of an engaged, loving wife and mother but today IS Father’s Day. Ladies, you know innately, that your husband and the Father to your children can only succeed with your help and if he’s anything like me, he knows the converse is also true.
For all of the Political Correctness rules that I have just broken, I don’t care. A boy (or daughter) REQUIRES a Father.
Be that man and tell the rest of those that oppose your natural role to go pound sand. And REMEMBER this day that Love is both an emotion AND a verb (that requires a decision to chose TO love or NOT to love).
Now go give that little one a hug and and kiss.
The post Fathers’ Day – It Really Isn’t about Giving a Gift or a Dinner. appeared first on Granite Grok.
First, remember I am merely an “enlightened amateur” as far as anything survival goes. Please vet & check on your own. Consider these to be priming the pump for your own investigations.
Second, the hour is late and I fear bad times are imminent, but even a month of food, water, etc., puts you well ahead of most of the sheeple. IMHO, set your minimum sights on a three-month period.
Third, two things will be critical for having the best chance of making it through:
Fourth, as you read here, note that I present an aggregation of articles that I think are interesting, but I do not have time to vet them. Caveat emptor.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Coining a new term:
To Uvalde, verb: To shirk your sworn duty to protect the citizens of your town who placed their trust in you, especially the most vulnerable and precious – the children – and to detain and/or arrest the parents of those children desperate to save their kids from slaughter.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Prepper Site URLS:
Most have daily articles. Please recommend others in the comments.
Ask a Prepper, how to prepare, survive and thrive, latest news
Mother Earth News
The Organic Prepper Home – The Organic Prepper
SurvivalBlog.com – The Daily Web Log for Prepared Individuals Living in Uncertain Times.
SHTF Blog – Modern Survival
And two aggregate sites listing their top favorite sites:
TOP 50 SURVIVAL & PREPPER BLOGS
The 50 Best Survival Blogs
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Short of years of preparation and untold wealth, you cannot possibly be fully prepared for everything (I have to keep reminding myself of that). But even some preparations, ideally at least 90 days of food, water / water purification, etc., puts you head and shoulders in front of the vast majority of the sheeple who will be in jaw-gaping astonishment when the SHTF. The only relevant questions are:
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Top of the fold:
Google, Twitter, Meta, TikTok and more just signed the EU’s “anti-disinformation” code (reclaimthenet.org)
When you can’t win the argument, silence the opposition.
—
‘Queer Ethics Professor’ Calls For Pedophilia To Be Destigmatised And Taught In Schools – Summit News
I predicted this. I predicted this for YEARS. First, gay marriage. Then multiple-person group marriages – which are in process. Then “intergenerational love”. Mark my words; book mark this. Soon it will be “interspecies love”.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Looks interesting. If things get spicy in a serious way, this will be a real danger. See also:
Lessons learned from a recent war
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Presented, quick hit style, are some links to specific-topic prepper articles I think are particularly noteworthy. Print them out and start a binder – if the SHTF badly enough you won’t be able to retrieve these off the net or, possibly, even off your computer (I remember one Y2K event I went to – someone was selling survival info on CDs… yeah, useful when the power’s out!):
Nothing this week.
=+=+=
Deep State / Coming Tyranny / WEF / Globalists (broad):
The WEF: Don’t Put Your Phone In Your Pocket. Put It In Your Body! – (theorganicprepper.com)
Now you are bugged, 24/7.
—
Contagious Vaccines: A Warning ⋆ Brownstone Institute
The sheer hubris of this defies description.
—
You WILL eat bugs.
=+=+=
Shortages (broadly):
I deliberately chose a Left-leaning source to verify this:
PBS – THE BUFFALO WAR: The Buffalo
To make matters worse for wild buffalo, some U.S. government officials actively destroyed bison to defeat their Native American enemies who resisted the takeover of their lands by white settlers. American military commanders ordered trips to kill buffalo to deny Native Americans an important source of food.
You think the US government wouldn’t use food against those whom it considers its enemies? Against you? They already have set the precedent.
=+=+=
Inflation (broadly):
Build Back Better: Your Electric Rates Are About to Double – Granite Grok
=+=+=
US Social Stability (broad catch-all):
‘Queer Ethics Professor’ Calls For Pedophilia To Be Destigmatised And Taught In Schools – Summit News
A nation that fails to protect its children has no future. Related:
Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions – LifeNews.com
Let’s not forget what abortion really is:
A nation that has failed on this scale, deserves to fall. The only question is how bad will His punishment be, and how can people who still have faith in Him get through it – beyond, of course, with His help.
—
Ten Plausible Civil War Scenarios – Identity Dixie
All plausible, I’m afraid.
—
Reading the signs of the times
Yes, IT is coming. Related:
The Colbert Insurrection
A nation CANNOT survive when there are disparate levels of justice. There’s a reason the statue of Justice is always wearing a blindfold. Since we now KNOW that how you are treated by The System depends on who you support politically, and who your friends are, and how much money you have – not in a subtle way as it has always, regretfully, been – but open and in your face… America is dead.
=+=+=
World Stability (broad catch-all):
Finland Will Seek NATO Membership “Without Delay” As Russia Warns Of ‘Threat’ To National Security | ZeroHedge
Like this is actually going to settle things down.
=+=+=
Specific to energy:
Report: Russia Could Shut Down Huge Chunk of US Power Grid in One Move | Farsnews Agency
=+=+=
Gardening, animals, etc.:
Nothing this week.
=+=+=
Tech security:
5 Apps That Know Everything About You. How Many Are You Using? (askaprepper.com)
I use youtube, and that’s about it.
—
Texas’ social media law can proceed, court says – Protocol
Excellent!
=+=+=
Self-defense:
Nothing this week except: BUY MORE AMMO!
=+=+=
Catch-all miscellaneous:
Nothing this week.
=+=+=
Wrap-up commentary if I am moved to do so:
Sorry this is so sparse this week. The younger kid brought home a nasty flu, and “generously” shared it with me.
My closing thought; anguish at this:
A View from the Beach: Rule 5 Saturday – Jamie Chung Fears Motherhood (fritz-aviewfromthebeach.blogspot.com)
I have two children. I’d like to have more, but for multiple reasons that does not seem to be in the cards. Nevertheless, people are choosing to be childless, or offload the “hassles” of parenthood – in this case, pregnancy – onto another. It’s the I WANT IT ALL generation.
Now, as Thomas Sowell once observed:
Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored.
I cannot count the number of hours of sleep I have had sheared from my life because of my kids. Hours and hours driving hither and yon. Countless dollars on clothes, toys, sports, lessons, etc. And I regret none of it. And yes, I had the lesser commitment in bringing them into the world, but that’s part of the experience too.
We are being shorn from the fundamentals of humanity, of family, by modernity. And it is a loss that I fear our children will suffer most.
=+=+=
Palate cleanser:
>>>>>=====<<<<<
LET’S GO BRANDON!
The post Survival Sunday appeared first on Granite Grok.
Many politicians claim to support the Second Amendment while simultaneously insisting the federal government has the authority to ban “military-style weapons.” These are mutually exclusive positions.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the people would always have access to “weapons of war.”
Gun control enthusiasts also argue the Second Amendment is not “absolute.” This is absolute nonsense.
The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If that verbiage is not absolute, I don’t know what is.
The more radical the gun-grabbers call for the Second Amendment to be repealed. It’s a ridiculous goal, and it wouldn’t fundamentally change anything. The Constitution never delegated the power to regulate firearms in the first place; the Second Amendment only reconfirms this pre-existing right and bars the federal government from infringing on it. Accordingly, every federal firearms law, other than those arming militias, is unconstitutional – even without the Second Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson said laws beyond the Constitutional authority are null and void. Thus, the states have an obligation to ignore them and prevent their enforcement – an obligation they refuse to uphold.
Congress began regulating firearms in 1934, with the National Firearms Act, a result of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, which in turn was a result of the gang activity arising from the federal prohibition of alcohol. After years of attempting to ban handguns, the anti-gun crowd turned their attention to “assault rifles.” California led the way with its ban in 1989. The state effectively rendered certain rifles illegal if they had more than two “scary features” that had nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm. Assault weapons were banned nationally in 1994 when President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. After the ban expired, statistics showed no increase in gun violence and deaths from these weapons.
Every time there is a shooting involving an AR-15, pundits and politicians focus on the gun rather than the shooter or the circumstances. In 2022, a renewed attempt to ban the AR-15 failed and President Biden had to sign a bill into law that focused on extended background checks, red flag laws and mental health – none of which the general government has the lawful authority to regulate according to the document they took an oath to uphold — the Constitution.
WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
Former President Barack Obama said, “Weapons of war have no place on our streets,” and, “our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned.”
Many conservative media pundits agree. In the process, they concede a crucial point that was a central reason for the ratification of the Second Amendment: The People must have the means by which they can resist a tyrannical government – means rendered ineffective if we surrender the right to be on a level playing field when it comes to firearms.
As Ryan McMaken from the Mises Institute explained, the origins of the militia trace back to 17th century England when Americans resisted the standing army sent by the king to crush dissent. He shares the insight of British historian Marcus Cunliffe regarding the origins of American military institutions and the compromises reached between a centralized military capable of suppressing dissent and a reasonable force needed to maintain order.
“A compromise was reached. First, a small regular force was to be maintained: this was the actual foundation of the British standing army. Second, there was to be a nationwide militia, composed of civilians who would — as in earlier days — be summoned in time of need. The militia, however, was to be under civil law, and to be organized locally by the lord lieutenant of each county. It was thus decentralized and divorced from royal control.”
In the colonies, standing armies were viewed with skepticism, if not outright hatred, and this was especially so after the British Army was sent as an ultimate enforcement mechanism for the various taxes and other acts imposed on the colonies by the Crown. One of the most hotly contested issues relating to the powers of the new Congress was its ability to raise armies.
During the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry famously observed that “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”
Henry went on to say that “the clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made?”
Henry’s denunciation clearly and emphatically rejected the consolidation of power. He feared giving a central government the power over both the sword and the purse. He observed that any attempt to restrain government in such an instance would be madness and thundered, “you will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment.” Henry concluded this opening barrage by asking “of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.”
This proclamation by Henry provides a succinct summation of the general beliefs of a large portion of Americans during the ratification period, a belief that led directly to the establishment and adoption of the Second Amendment.
Most States, Virginia included, ratified the Constitution on the basis that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” upon the general government should be added. And among the specifics, Virginia asserted in her ratification instrument that “the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.” [Emphasis added]
Virginia declared as a condition of ratification that “standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.” [Emphasis added]
Likewise, New York, as a condition of ratification, insisted that “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well-regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.”
Clause XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights guarantees “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Suffice to say that the founding generation had an immense and universal fear of standing armies. James Madison explained that “a standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the Constitution. He provided further context to the right to bear arms and its role in preventing standing armies when he pointed out, “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” A more thorough discussion of these concepts can be found HERE.
The Second Amendment thus came about as a means of preventing the need for standing armies by keeping “the militia,” or as George Mason asserted “every able bodied person,” under the auspices of the individual states – in other words, out of the immediate control of the general government.
In his book The Founders’ Second Amendment, Stephen P. Halbrook describes Pennsylvania Senator William McClay’s concerns as written during notes from debates that would result in the enactment of the 1792 federal Militia Act; namely, that Alexander Hamilton and his faction were instigating war with American Indians and foreign nations to justify raising an army that would “awe our Citizens into submission.”
Roger Sherman of Connecticut commented that man had an essential right “to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.” [Emphasis added.]
ORIGINAL INTENTIONS
The intent of the Constitution and historical background are irrefutable: a civilian, decentralized force was viewed as the optimal means by which forces loyal to a king, or central government could be held in check, should they become tyrannical in nature. The government, the media and the education system have successfully indoctrinated the people into believing that their safety lies in their ability to defend themselves but only extends so far as to render us subservient to the capabilities of the government to defend itself from us.
In other words, the polar opposite of the purpose of the Second Amendment.
In 1794, George Washington marched troops into Pennsylvania, absent the required request from the governor, to quell a rebellion over a Whiskey Tax. The Whiskey Rebellion came about after the urban/Hamiltonian faction of government used its power to impose a tax on its opposition, the agrarian/Jeffersonians. When the rebellion occurred, the federal government used its might to suppress opposition in a manner in contravention to the law.
From Wounded Knee to Waco, we can see what happens when a civilian population is unable to defend itself from government. Worldwide, over 200 million lives have been lost after governments disarmed their citizenry, yet we continue to buy into the insane notion that “We the People” are incapable of bearing arms equal in power and effectiveness as those of the military — the standing army. Even the definition of commonly used firearms has been changed to fit the modern anti-gun narrative.
In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster described a musket, the weapon used by colonial militias, as “a species of firearms used in war.” It was once a given that civilians, i.e., the militia, would have the very same firearms as the military. Merriam Webster changed its definition of “assault rifle” to the following: “any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire.” [Emphasis added]
A federal court in Massachusetts held that the Second Amendment does not protect “assault rifles.” The ruling is problematic for several reasons, the most blatant being a federal court was ruling on a state firearms law.
According to the Constitution as ratified they have no legal authority to do so as the matter was reserved to the states exclusively. Also, the Second Amendment does not apply to any model or type of weapon; it applies to the general government. The Amendment is a restriction against the general government prohibiting it from regulating firearms at all.
Note the language used by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey: “Today’s decision upholding the Assault Weapons Ban vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war…and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.”
Those seeking to restrict the right to “weapons of war” cite D.C. vs. Heller, in which Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” What the Court is implying is that “assault rifles” are not subject to Second Amendment protection, which is, again, a total fallacy given the history and intent of the Constitution as ratified.
Rifles that simply look like military rifles are banned in many states, or at least must be registered. And now we are seeing bans in local communities as well. We have become so conditioned to this false notion that civilians should not be equally as well-armed as the standing army the founders so distrusted, that now we are accepting bans on guns that simply resemble such weapons.
Patrick Henry’s worst fears have materialized and the general public, uneducated on their own history, is largely clueless.
Tenche Coxe writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, asked “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?” He continued by affirming that “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
With the average American gleaning their “understanding” of the Second Amendment in particular, and American history in general, from agenda-driven academics and talking heads in the media and on talk radio, such basic arguments are being capitulated. As a result, we are in the process of surrendering a fundamental tenet – our ability to defend ourselves from personal assault as well as from a proven threat by the very government imposing these unlawful restrictions. Our founders are rolling in their graves.
Note: Carl Jones contributed to this article. He is a former active duty U.S. Marine, and a Certified Firearms Instructor. He is a contributing writer for the Abbeville Institute and a member of the Society of Independent Southern Historians.
Republished with Permission | Tenth Amendment Center
The post The Purpose of the Second Amendment Was to Ensure the People Would Always Have Access to “Weapons of War.” appeared first on Granite Grok.
There’s always time to watch Senator Rand Paul “interview” the Washington Elite. Especially when it is a bureaucratic lifer like Anthony Fauci, who more or less admits that there is no evidence that COVID19 boosters reduce the hospitalization or death of children.
Here’s a local copy of the video if you prefer.
REMATCH!
Dr. Fauci sweats and stammers under the pressure of @RandPaul‘s questions. pic.twitter.com/D9pMLBgdZB
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 16, 2022
The post Paul v Fauci appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’m pleased to announce my candidacy for the office of State Representative for Rockingham District 19, Kensington and Hampton Falls. I reside in Kensington.
I am running for office because I believe that our republic is in extreme peril. The Democratic regime in Washington is waging unrestricted warfare against our God-given rights, our standard of living, our gun rights, our children, our health, and our faith. Millions of foreign nationals streaming across our southern border are being transported throughout the nation by the regime. We can push back by using the legislative process in New Hampshire to enact laws to bolster our liberties and nullify unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and mandates.
I am an experienced businessman, have been employed in senior technical management at Fortune 500 and startup companies, and am currently employed as an engineer working on projects for the U.S. Department of Defense. I will bring my experience as a seasoned problem solver to the New Hampshire Legislature.
As a Christian and a conservative, I am passionate about preserving and protecting our God-given rights, ensuring election integrity, enabling parents to take back our public schools, protecting the life of the unborn, and preserving constitutional carry in New Hampshire. I am a member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the NH Firearms Coalition, and County Pond Fish & Game Club.
It’s no longer enough to vote for candidates just because they have an “R” after their names. We need to elect Republicans who revere our Constitution and who will work to protect our inalienable rights.
If elected, I pledge to work tirelessly to protect our liberties, take back our schools, and push back against the encroachment on our rights by the federal government.
Together we can keep New Hampshire free!
John Valvanis
John@Valvanis4NH.org
https://www.valvanis4nh.org/
Reminder: Content about candidates or by candidates is not an endorsement by GraniteGrok.com or its authors.
The post Conservative Candidate for State Rep Running in Hampton Falls/ Kensington appeared first on Granite Grok.
Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire is just a few years old, but they have already carved out a huge space in the conservative news niche for their powerful assault on corporate media outlets of all kinds. Fox News has repeatedly proven itself to be a shill for Big Pharma and leftist causes, and Newsmax has even sold out on Ukraine.
Thankfully, and perhaps recognizing this void in real truth-telling, The Daily Wire has stepped up to the plate. They produce narrative-shifting documentaries – going after Fauci, George Floyd, and the idea of womanhood – and have a stellar lineup both in the podcast space and online print news.
They also do a great job at shorts, which is where this video comes in. The faltering house of pedos and deviants at CNN is in a freefall, aided largely by the fact that it can’t tell the truth. They are the opposite of the mythical George Washington, who could tell no lies.
As Donald, Jr. says, this video is an epic, must-watch:
Epic! Must watch pic.twitter.com/2WYR7znwZN
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 16, 2022
Tater Stelter sets up the video by noting: “This brand research by Gallup says American trust in the mass media is at its lowest point since 2016 and near a record low overall.”
From there, the short clips come together with the perfectly-overlaid score to produce a truly remarkable summary of CNN’s specific and corporate media’s general collapse. They simply cannot report fairly, accurately, or honestly.
Setting aside Zucker’s affair, Toobin’s self-pleasuring, and the firing of pedophiliac monsters, the real reason for CNN’s abysmal ratings is tied directly to their inability to serve the public interest. When a lineup of Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Brian Stelter, and so many other hosts of primetime slots can’t hide their elitist and intellectual snobbery at regular Americans and pass along hoaxes as real news, abject failure is the only possible result.
Chris Cuomo has since been fired, and it remains to be seen what will happen to Don Lemon and Brian Stelter. Both are awful, but Stelter especially so because he possesses no apparent talents. How did he get hired in the first place, let alone become the focal point of a major media company? It defies logic and boggles the mind. As much as he offers moments of hilarity and comedic relief, his days are sadly numbered. It’s as if CNN is trying to get viewers again.
Fox News previously reported:
“A CNN “insider” is reportedly calling for the firing of the network’s left-wing media correspondent Brian Stelter for not exposing CNN president Jeff Zucker’s romantic relationship with another high-ranking colleague, something that’s been dubbed an “open secret” by critics.
Stelter, who has emerged as CNN’s lackey whenever the network was swept up in controversy, has been all over CNN’s airwaves on Wednesday to report on the sudden resignation of his boss, who admitted he failed to disclose a consensual relationship he had with another CNN executive.”
The post A Savage Montage Of CNN Spreading Fake News appeared first on Granite Grok.
Regarding the letter by Linda Terwilliger about voting for candidates that support public schools, nothing to see here but gas lighting. I certainly don’t know who Ms. Terwilliger is. I wonder, does she work for a non-governmental organization? The public school system? Who is the “we” she speaks of?
And what specific article in the Constitution is she claiming that Republican Free Staters mocked? Curious minds want to know.
The 150 state representatives that received the highest approval ratings are representing the will of the people. She claims these representatives are extremists. So then is she saying that we, the people, are extremists? Tell us then, which representatives are white supremacists? What public statements did they make that show they are racists? Put it out here.
I also ask what proof does she have that election workers had their integrity disparaged by those, not of “her” ilk? What exactly are the unconstitutional actions she speaks of?
For the record, Free State Libertarians despise authoritarianism. When the progressive left states something like the Free Staters want autocracy, you can be sure they are reversing the spotlight on themselves, for it is actually they who want autocracy. The leftists hate the Constitution, but they waste no time citing it for their convenience. Thankfully most Granite Staters know what the truth is, despite people like Ms. Terwilliger trying to instill fear through falsehoods.
By the way, fact check: we live in a Republic, not a democracy.
The post Is She Saying That We, the People, Are Extremists? appeared first on Granite Grok.
There’s no legislative purpose to the January 6 Committee. Its “Report” is a professionally produced TV propaganda extravaganza intended to smear former President Trump and prevent his 2024 re-election as President.
Breaking a 200-year tradition, Democrat leader Pelosi appointed all committee members, only people who voted to impeach President Trump; the Republican leader’s appointees were rejected. Thus, witnesses know that perjured or incomplete anti-Trump testimony won’t be exposed and that their pro- or anti-Trump claims may impact their treatment by the media, employers, prosecutors, Judges, and juries.
Why wasn’t the Capitol adequately protected? The Committee refuses to investigate why President Trump’s January 2, 2020 offer of 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol was refused despite known threats of violence, expected large crowds, and Capitol Police pleas for help before January 6.
A veteran ABC “Nightline” producer created the committee’s one-sided TV “Report”, with members reading scripts from Teleprompters. Evidence allegedly condemning former President Trump was cherry-picked from 1000 witnesses and 140,000 documents. No contrary evidence is provided. No evidence is challenged. E.g., Chairman Thompson’s proven false, inflammatory claim that police died on January 6 defending the Capitol remained unchallenged; only unarmed protestors died at the Capitol on January 6.
In a jury trial Prosecutor’s opening statements couldn’t be as dishonest as the January 6 Committee “Report”; prosecutors know that Defense Attorneys will expose their omissions and tear their lies to shreds.
The January 6 Committee allows no Republican selected representatives to question witnesses to expose lies and biases, to present contrary and exculpatory evidence or theories, or to expose other misinformation. Under these circumstances every innocent defendant will be found guilty!
The January 6 Committee Report is simply taxpayer funded Democrat propaganda.
The post Democrat Propaganda Simply to Deny Trump a Second Chance at the Presidency appeared first on Granite Grok.
For the past 20 weeks, NHGOP Chair Steve Stepanek has actively encouraged Elliot Gault to remain both the Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the NHGOP. The Executive Director is a salaried, hired, non-voting position. The Assistant Secretary is a non-compensated voting officer elected to the NHGOP Executive Committee. NHGOP State Bylaws Article IV Section 3 (Compensation) and 5 (Conflict of Interest) are clear as the sky is blue: whoever is paid cannot vote, and vice versa:
Compensation:
The State Chairman may be paid such compensation as the Executive Committee approves, and shall be the only compensated officer of the State Committee.
Those members appointed to the Executive Committee by the Chairman shall not have a vote with respect to the salary of the Chairman.
All other members of the Executive Committee shall receive no compensation for attending regular or special meetings or for services rendered to the State Committee.
Conflict of Interest:
To avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, a member of the Executive Committee of the Republican State Committee shall not participate in nor be present for any matter in which they, their spouse, or dependent has a private interest that may directly or indirectly affect or influence the performance of their duties. Further, a member shall not disclose or use confidential or privileged information acquired in the performance of their duties for personal benefit or financial gain. The Executive Committee may vote to remove from office any person who violates these provisions. (Also see Article I Sec. 4a)
We want to thank Gary Whitehill for this Op-Ed. If you have an Op-Ed or LTE
you would like us to consider, please submit it to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
During February’s NHGOP Executive Committee meeting, instead of leading with integrity by immediately asking Elliot to resign as Assistant Secretary, Mr. Stepanek recited his interpretation of the Bylaws’ intent, rather than what is clearly written. When the group majority challenged this interpretation, Mr. Stepanek proposed selecting individuals himself for a “special counsel.” No personally selected special counsel is necessary. Especially when it is Mr. Stepanek’s judgment itself that is in question.
If there is any doubt why New Hampshire is becoming entrenched as a purple state, Mr. Stepanek’s continued behavior demonstrates how easily unethical party anti-leadership rears its head and speaks against the Republican Party’s interest.
Does Mr. Stepanek understand his actions directly contribute to our State devolving into deep purple?
Why did he lobby to decide his salary as well as 10% of all funds raised by the NHGOP go into his pocket?
Why does he refuse to retain official and impartial legal counsel?
Any reasonable, rational, and Bylaw-abiding Republican should be concerned by the fundamental disrespect continually exhibited by Mr. Stepanek.
Moral courage matters.
Gary Whitehill
Colebrook, NH
BIOGRAPHY: Gary is a 9th Generation Yankee Constitutional Republican running for State Representative in Coos County District 3.
The post New Hampshire: Entrenching the Purple State? appeared first on Granite Grok.
For years, New Hampshire’s “buffer zone” law has allowed private abortion clinics to ban counseling, protesting, and silent prayer on the public sidewalks outside their facilities.
As a candidate, Chris Sununu promised pro-life voters he would repeal this buffer zone law. Sununu made this promise while meeting with a group of pro-life leaders including Cornerstone’s current Executive Director Shannon McGinley and lead by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne. Sununu later repeated that promise in a signed letter to Lamontagne, which you can read here.
We now know that this statement was a lie, a promise the Governor never intended to keep. On May 27, a Friday, Sununu vetoed a bill—HB 1625—which would have repealed the unconstitutional buffer zone law. His veto revealed a depth of brazen dishonesty that is almost unknown in New Hampshire politics. Even Washington, D. C. politicians rarely manipulate and betray their constituents this directly and cynically.
Opponents of HB 1625 in the media have said the bill would have enacted a “ban on safety zones” outside abortion clinics. But the bill would not have “banned” anyone from doing anything. The entire bill was nothing more than a few lines repealing the “buffer zone” law. The cynical rhetoric of some journalists is a reminder that, on abortion, New Hampshire media have been increasingly and deliberately unhinged from the world of reality.
Unfortunately, because abortion clinics have never actually enforced the buffer zone law, it cannot be challenged in court. Knowing that the law would be struck down if it is ever actually enforced, abortion clinics have scrupulously avoided enforcing the law while—at the same time—campaigning vigorously against any legislative attempts to repeal it. The clinics’ goal is to keep the law on the books in order to deter pro-life speech through the lingering threat of punishment.
Governor Sununu’s promise to repeal the buffer zone law was not the only lie in his letter to Lamontagne. In the same letter, Governor Sununu also promised to support a “Late Term Abortion Ban.”
Earlier this year, however, Governor Sununu endorsed the original text of HB 1609, which would have returned New Hampshire to unlimited abortion up to birth. Fortunately, HB 1609 was significantly amended by the time it reached the Governor’s desk, leaving New Hampshire’s six-month abortion ban fundamentally intact, no thanks to the Governor.
Still, it now seems that if Governor Sununu promises in a signed letter to pursue any specific policy on abortion, he can be trusted to do exactly the opposite. It is a sign of the laziness and unquestioning obedience of Granite State media that, outside of the pro-life community, the Governor has continued to get away with his systematic dishonesty.
Sununu’s endorsement of the original HB 1609 text was both a betrayal and a historic low for any Republican governor. Although Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker is known as a moderate and socially liberal Republican, Baker once wisely vetoed a bill functionally identical to HB 1609. In December of 2020, a strong Democratic majority in Massachusetts’ legislature overrode the veto and enacted abortion up to birth in Massachusetts.
By positioning himself as even more fanatically pro-abortion than Charlie Baker, Sununu earned the distinction of becoming the most extreme pro-abortion GOP Governor currently serving in any state. It seems his “important work” has been to defend the abortion lobby, not stand up to it.
The numbers are not on the Governor’s side. Last month, polling showed that 62.2% of Granite Staters either support New Hampshire’s current six-month ban or want a more restrictive abortion ban. By throwing away even the most minimal standards of honesty and integrity, Sununu has groveled before a loud and well-funded minority of pro-abortion extremists. The Governor will not and should not be rewarded for his deception.
Recent Posts
Legislative Update 05/28/22
May 30, 2022
Senator Shaheen Promotes Misinformation on the WHPA
May 30, 2022
Legislative Update 05/23/22
May 23, 2022
Legislative Update 05/16/22
May 16, 2022
How About Running for Office – Yes, You!
May 13, 2022
Legislative Update 05/09/22
May 9, 2022
Sununu Lied If He Vetoes Buffer Zone Repeal
May 4, 2022
The post Gov. Sununu Lied to Get Elected appeared first on Granite Grok.
Texas Senator John Cornyn, one of Mitch’s-Morons, getting booed by the Texas-GOP for his “bipartisanship” … actually, capitulation … on unconstitutional “Red Flag Laws”:
Senator @JohnCornyn deservedly booed at Texas GOP Convention today.
Your proposed gun control deal is unconstitutional and immoral, and you are unfit for GOP leadership.pic.twitter.com/UhpICLVDaZ
— The Columbia Bugle (@ColumbiaBugle) June 17, 2022
And here is his incredibly arrogant response:
Senator Cornyn, after being booed and formally rebuked by the Texas GOP convention, reportedly said “I've never given in to mobs and I'm not starting today.”
So, a GOP senator views the Republican voters who elected him — and law abiding gun owners — as a mob to ignore? pic.twitter.com/BLzqdha7vh
— Spencer Brown (@itsSpencerBrown) June 17, 2022
Mitch’s-Morons DESPISE the very voters they are supposed to represent.
The post Anti-2A John Cornyn Gets Booed by Texas-GOP … Responds By Calling Them A “Mob” appeared first on Granite Grok.
These days, no matter who the president is, they will likely unleash a raft of Executive Orders meant to undo the previous president’s orders. The appropriate response on either side is to complain about abuse of authority or undermining the Democracy or the Republic.
Biden signed a pile of orders reversing, repealing, undoing, or negating Donald Trump’s, but now he’s upped the ante. He’s invoking emergency and war powers to push pieces around the board in a manner that suits his (handler’s) ideological preferences. In some cases, he is attempting to use these powers (or threatening to use them) to mitigate the side-effects of his priorities or actions or policies he has advanced.
Democrats destroy everything they touch, so breaking things was a given. It’s how they get what they want. But this time, it’s gone sideways in the worst way, and there are significant political ramifications. Threats of a Red November storm could stall the planned destruction or at least slow it down. To soften the anticipated beatings, Biden Inc. is delivering a flurry of “actions” meant to appear as if (1) they didn’t want all this crap to happen and (2) they care about the negative consequences.
Neither is true, but it proves the point: they are incompetent and unfit for rule.
They claim to be the victim of external forces only they are smart enough to manage, while never taking responsibility for failing to anticipate the doom until after it is upon us.
And while I could label them idiots, those are, in fact, the people who believe whatever they say and continue to put them in positions of power. And they will do or say anything to keep that.
Say hello to abusing emergency or war powers.
If any Republican did it, the Left would lose what passes for their minds. Biden doing it is just a natural extension of the police state authority required to scratch their authoritarian tick. But it also sets a precedent.
Having opened the door when we are not at war, and we won’t know how far he’ll open it until that happens, why wouldn’t a future president use the same logic to push the pendulums back the other way or in a new direction altogether?
Or is that the point?
Create another new normal for abuse of power. Let it set in on both sides. If a political opponent gains access to that power, so what? You’ll be back and can push the abuse a bit further. Losing Congress or the White House for a few years has not tamed the bureaucratic beast that greases the wheels of power.
The swamp is, after all, yours.
A wipeout in November or 2024 is more like a foot lifting from the accelerator but never putting it on the brake.
But if you’d like to see what an actual insurrection looks like, put Republicans in office committed to taking federal power and money and giving it back to the states and the people (if you can find any).
The Left would make the George Floyd riots look like a cotillion.
So, to answer the question, with a few exceptions, the Dem base loves Biden’s abuses or planned abuses of power.
Useful idiots.
The post Are Dems Who Bemoaned Trump’s Exec. Orders Excited About Biden Abusing Emergency and War Powers? appeared first on Granite Grok.
I began a new adventure this week. I am co-hosting a radio talk show with my friend Liz Gabert once a month, and the show is called SW Meets NE…On the Right! Liz is a proud native of Texas, and I am a true blue New Englander.
Our topic was the Second Amendment and the impact that the recent mass shootings have had on an all-out assault on our gun rights. It was an interesting conversation about the misnomer “assault rifles,” age restrictions on purchasing AR15 rifles, more extended wait period on background checks, and the fact that no changes in any laws will make an iota of difference in illegal shootings. People who commit crimes do not reference the laws before they act. Period.
Two things we need to do is find ways to identify potential shooters by monitoring Social Media for people to predict their actions and by each of us being more aware of what is happening around us. We need to sharpen our senses for real issues that are potentially dangerous. We need to have the courage to speak up when we see a situation that may escalate. This second task is not easy, for we all see and hear things we blow off as noise.
We always see the trail left by a mass shooter after the fact and wonder how we missed it. We must close the gap, find these crumbs, and prevent a situation where we all say, how did this happen.
We blend our Right-leaning thoughts into a one-hour show. Here is the YouTube link for our pilot show this week.
We had a dynamic guest on-air during our show. Keith Hanson of Critical-Dynamics is a radio talk show host, a gun advocate, and a gun use trainer. Keith was well versed in the mental illness aspect of mass shootings and the impact of stabilizing drugs given to children in adolescence.
In Keith’s opinion, and backed by U.S. government statistics, these drugs used at an early age is the common denominator in 89%. That is a number that should motivate an investigation into this excessive use of medication and be able to correlate a pattern in potential mass assault perpetrators. To think this would be logical, but you would be wrong. The narrative that people want to push is guns and the need to restrict the purchase and use of all handguns. This is the “it’s the gun, stupid” mentality and is short-sighted.
The gun is to blame as much as General Motors for a car accident. The gun and the car are inanimate objects, and in the hands of a drunk driver or a mass shooter, either could be deadly. Law-abiding individuals use either millions of times a day and deserve the right to use it. That right should not be infringed upon because there are evil people in this world.
Evil people pay no attention to laws, no matter how many or how restrictive. Period. That thought may be redundant in this writing, but it is that important.
Until politicians get themselves past this narrow thinking, these shootings will unfortunately continue. The other fact to remember is we only hear about the most deadly shootings because body counts sell. There have been nearly 30 school shootings this year in America. That is in just the first half of the year. Do you now think it might be time to examine childhood drug use. You’re damn right it is.
The post We Need to Keep the Pills in the Bottle appeared first on Granite Grok.
Beginning in 2023, anyone voting in New Hampshire without proper ID will be subject to the requirements of SB418, An Act relative to verification of voter affidavits. Voters lacking required documentation will have their ballots set aside pending proof of a qualification to vote.
And if you fail to provide that proof, your votes won’t count.
On the seventh day after the election, if an affidavit ballot voter has failed to return the verification letter with the missing voter qualifying documentation to the secretary of state, either in person or using the prepaid U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail Express Envelope, the secretary of state shall instruct the moderator of the town, city, ward, or district in which the affidavit ballot was cast to retrieve the associated numbered affidavit ballot and list on a tally sheet, by candidate or issue, the votes cast on that ballot. The counting of votes on affidavit ballots identified by the secretary of state as unqualified shall be conducted by the town, city, ward, or district using the same methods of counting and observation utilized on the day of the election for hand counted ballots. The votes cast on such unqualified affidavit ballots shall be deducted from the vote total for each affected candidate or each affected issue.
New Hampshire has required affidavits for a long time, but they prevented only a fraction of the fraud.
SB417 is a bit more stringent, and we know that because Democrats don’t like it. One of them even expressed concern about overseas military ballots, which is total BS. They have almost zero interest in the voting rights of a class of voters that is still majority Republican. So SB418 should improve things, but it doesn’t go far enough.
While it will have some impact on the loads of out-of-state Dems who flock here to tip our elections, it won’t stop out-of-state college kids paying out-of-state tuition from using their college ID as proof.
(1) A driver’s license issued by any state or the federal government.
(2) An identification card issued under RSA 260:21, RSA 260:21-a, or RSA 260:21-b or a nondriver’s identification card issued by the motor vehicles division, department, agency, or office of any other state.
(3) A United States armed services identification card.
(4) A United States passport or passcard.
(5) A valid student identification card if:
(A) The card is issued by:
(i) A college, university, or career school in New Hampshire and approved to operate or licensed to operate in New Hampshire.
(ii) A public high school in New Hampshire.
(iii) A nonpublic high school in New Hampshire accredited by a private school accrediting agency that is recognized by the department of education.
(iv) Dartmouth College.
(v) A college or university operated by the university system of New Hampshire or the community college system of New Hampshire.
Students who live in NH have an NH driver’s license or official state-issued ID. They can get a fishing or dog license, file their federal taxes from an NH address, or get called for jury duty. That’s the shortlist.
In other words, SB418 scratches the surface. It might encourage some in the Granite State to cast ballots in their own states by absentee, but we won’t have clean elections until out-of-state students are required to vote by mail or absentee in their home states.
And for those obsessed with counting every vote, make sure people are voting from their legal address in that precinct and not just from wherever they happen to be on election day.
The post New NH Law: “Voters” Without Proper ID Need to Provide Proof within 7 Days or Their Ballots Get Tossed appeared first on Granite Grok.
My, how things have changed in just a few years.
You need to have eyes in the back of your head in America’s cities now…pic.twitter.com/DuF7xDiX4o
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 18, 2022
...we began construction on the cabin.
It looks more like this today, but it's still a work in progress.
Husband and wife team John Bowman & Claire Ketteler are excited to announce our candidacy for the two House seats representing Newbury and New London, N.H., Merrimack County District 7.
We gratefully ask for your support in this marginally blue district. (2.5%)
83% of Americans believe our country is going in the wrong direction. This understanding proves that the mainstream public is sensible and can be trusted! Our state is sliding down the same path, and it is time for citizen volunteers to step up and “throw the rascals out.”
We chose to run because our state government is not responsive to the citizens. We witnessed the Senate lawyers tell our New Hampshire Supreme Court that our constitutional right to Petition and Remonstrance has “gone out of fashion” and is now just a right to ask permission to petition or remonstrate, with no obligation by the legislature to act. This same body allowed the Feds to mandate shared bathrooms in our schools under the threat of losing school lunch funding. This violates our Constitution in several ways.
Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held forever that school policies should be determined by community values. When did this change? The right to protest in the abortion debate is allowed only for one side. Mask mandates, school and business closures, and medical freedom all have devolved into hypocrisy. It appears that even at the local level, FREEDOM is held sacred only for some.
HB1431, the Parental Rights bill, failed by 5 Republican votes. Parents’ right to know what their children are being taught can only be controversial in a world turned upside down. That is why we run.
A biased media calling itself “mainstream” will tell us that Conservatives are radicals. That any crazy policies and their devastating consequences are not.
The most recent example: MAYRA FLORES made history as the first Mexican-born woman to be elected to Congress. Now, we don’t care what her social status is, but the biased media does, and they were completely silent. She did not fit the accepted ‘conservatives-are-bigots’ narrative. Ms. Flores responded to her election by stating that Mexican culture is based on conservative values of “faith, family, and hard work”. She added “patriotism” further on. You will not hear that on the news.
Claire and I believe that FREEDOM is a mainstream value held in very low regard by the Left. Indeed, it is a Natural Right given or revoked only by the Creator.
Freedom of thought brings freedom of conscience. Neither can exist without the right to speak your mind. Conservatives allow this. Radicals do not.
We believe that people should be free to express their views on any issue without being abused by the force of law. Our legislature has difficulty with this concept.
We believe that parents should be free to question whatever their children might be experiencing at school. No item of curriculum or behavior, happy activity or wrongdoing, should be able to escape full disclosure by law.
We believe that our State Constitution–and that other one–exists to limit government, not our rights. We approve of the NHGOP platform, but I didn’t read the word “God” in it once. So perhaps they too believe our rights come from the government–and can be revoked by the government also. This needs to change as well.
We understand that votes in the House do not always represent what they seem to, as many buried words and phrases can change the entire bill, making a flawed Bill a worthless Act to be disposed of forthwith. That will be our combined task, to investigate all the words and phrases in bills, listen to all interested parties, and to vote according to our core beliefs in
One final thought. We support TERM LIMITS for all elected offices, including the school boards, legislature, executive council, and the courts. We can’t be a citizen-volunteer government if we allow politicians to stay in business indefinitely.
Please check out our websites. We start marching as soon as the yard signs arrive!
johnbowman4nh.com claireketteler.com
The post Take Back the Mainstream! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Unless you have studied communist Russia’s history the name Trofim Lysenko likely means nothing to you. Given the current political climate, however, Lysenko and his story are one we should all know and share with others, especially representatives.
Lysenko’s story is one of both science denial and the utter failure of the progressive/communist approach to agriculture.
Lysenko was born and raised in Ukraine, where his family owned a farm. He learned the basics from his father and then went on to study at the University of Kyiv where he was a middling-level student who was weak in math and lacking also the talent for ingenuity. Lysenko became radicalized by the growing popularity of Marx’s socialist view, which he then adapted to his anemic understanding of agriculture.
Lysenko learned of the two types of wheat grown in those parts, summer and winter wheat. Confusing plagiarism with genius, he took credit for a hybrid style of winter wheat which he claimed to adapt by subjecting summer wheat to extremely cold temperatures, which he also did in reverse with winter wheat, believing he could make them hardier. This method had already been done by reputable agronomists in the 1800s as well as likely any number of farmers throughout human history.
Human nature being what it is, Lysenko was able to take this agronomical plagiarism and turn it into opportunity. As Russia was under the iron grip of Stalin’s communist regime, Lysenko took his “discovery” and curried favor with the dictator, who made him director of Genetics for the Academy of Sciences in 1940. A handful of Russian scientists at the time saw the irony in this appointment, given that Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics as a scientific fact. As a result, Lysenko had power over both Russia’s agricultural practices and the scientists who might speak out against him. This would prove to be disastrous for both.
Lysenko, a peasant, and lifelong proletarian developed scientific theories based on his ideology over science. Adapting communistic thinking to plant life he surmised plants behaved in Marxian solidarity that led to a type of utopia of the soil. His theories included plants having a sacrificial nature and that proximity bred cooperation among them rather than competition for nutrients. Other Soviet ideologues were enchanted by his synchronizing theories and this caused major media like Pravda to essentially shape the cult of Lysenko. With his newfound fame and power, he was also able to imprison his critics and even have some killed. This included those which had placed Soviet genetics at the top of the global scientific community by the 1930s.
In practice, his agricultural theories led to famines in both Russia and later in Mao’s China. Russians lost numerous millions while creating a food shortage from Lysenko’s pseudoscience. Mao, also an adherent of Communist science, adopted the same measures costing between 15-55 million during the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-1962. What Stalin and Lysenko had touted as a communist victory that would lead to annual harvest booms and year-round work delivered the opposite. Lysenko’s critics increased and would ultimately have him removed from his directorship to live out his days in shame for his failures.
Are we seeing a type of Lysenkoism among today’s progressives? Are those who called out, even panic-yelled, “follow the science” actually following pseudoscience based on bad ideology? Is the “Woke” movement a cornucopia of pseudo-scientific theories being pushed as social rights? If science is based on testable, repeatable, reliable models that offer universal truth about the natural order the answer is – yes they are.
Pick from any one of the mRNA-vaccine, fat-shaming, gender theory, queer theory, or even climate change hot topics and the discerning and scientific students will discover the incongruous of their “scientific” claims. Aside from weak and even backward thinking, these popular ideas share Lysenko’s political affinity for Marxist communism.
Unless you have $600-$1000 lying around to buy a copy of Survival of the Wisest by Jonas Salk, the same Jonas Salk who developed a polio vaccine, you probably haven’t read it. I was fortunate enough to get a copy from the Dartmouth College Library after listening to a review of it on YouTube. Given its controversial content, I had to read it for myself. Despite parting ways with Lysenko on genetic theory, Salk shares his communist-globalist leanings with some eugenics to boot. Salk explains how we can use mRNA vaccines (circa 1973) to essentially hack human beings and create a superior race of “wise” people. This highly engineered race would also need to leave the troglodytes from what he referred to as Epoch A behind since Epoch B would be for the ascended masters who moved on from traditional values in favor of super science values that mirror such Marxists as Marcuse and Foucault’s vision of a sexually liberated Illuminati – seriously. As we look out our windows we can see the effects of his pandemic theory and, like Lysenko’s, they are disastrous.
As a fitness expert, I am stunned by the ignoring of established science regarding healthy body weight metrics to avoid “fat-shaming”. I can only assume the champions of this new counter-fat craze never bothered to look up the etymology for the abdomen. Ab is to “go away from” and domeni is Latin for “God”. Named that because as one got fatter, the clearer was their gluttony. Conversely, the more one focuses on having ripped abs, the clearer their vanity. If only it were simple gluttony, obesity doesn’t add to the quality of life in any health metric. Furthermore, obesity disqualifies you from many joys of life, like with the 240-pound Tik Tok star recently denied her horse-riding adventure thanks to her excess body fat. Singer Adele was shamed for actually losing weight. Excessive fat is exactly that – excessive, as in unhealthy. We know that thanks to exercise science and modern medicine.
Gender theory is yet another farcical “science” based on the philosophical notions of Dr. John Money who simply borrowed sex grammar and applied them to people to validate his quackish attempt to change two boys into girls. At the expense of both of their lives ending in suicide, Money urged them and their parents to play along under the guise of his credentialed theory, which lacked any scientific merit. The loss of life is eerily reminiscent of Lysenkoism, and the rise in this practice among progressives seems to offer the Marxist Utopia that never comes while leaving destruction in its wake.
Gender theory is outdone by queer theory, ostensibly beginning in 1984 with Gayle Rubin’s essay “Thinking Sex” where she defends all manner of perversity, her words even, up to and including sadomasochism and even pedophilia which she euphemizes as “cross-generational attraction”. Dr. James Lindsay, Peter Boghosian, and Helen Pluckrose caught on to this, along with many others, and with the rise in pseudo-academic journals. These three exposed with their “Grievance Studies Affair” which was made famous by simply revising the thirteenth chapter of Mein Kampf as a submission to a Women’s Studies Journal only to see it applauded for the excellence of its aims (namely to subjugate men). Queer theory now openly states its aim is to queer everything to create a new normal – where boys can be girls, men can swim against women, and animals can be married to humans. The new normal seems to fit the Biblical warning of calling evil good and good evil.
Lastly, knowing Vermonters take Climate Change more seriously than they do murdering babies, this pseudo-science has been debunked numerous times by scientific experts unafraid to point out the climate kings have no clothes on. I’m no climatologist but I can see the polar bear population has doubled rather than died off per Al Gore’s warning. Ice caps contract and expand, which exposes another of his threats to mankind. Parts of the earth have seen the coldest temperatures in years and warming is not occurring, hence the name change to “climate change” from global warming. Manhatten is still above sea level, and with any luck, carbon dioxide will continue to create greater amounts of greenery leading to more arable land and the ability to sustain our desperately needed population growth. Yet the climate crazies would rather halt development in the third world by curbing their fossil fuel use, which will also cost millions of lives and the hope of prosperity.
One begins to wonder if this universal incompetence is even that, or if they have destroying human flourishing down to a science.
The post Progressives and the New Lysenkoism appeared first on Granite Grok.