A must-read thread by Matt Walsh … IF you really want to understand what gender-affirming healthcare involves. It is very lengthy, so if you have a short attention span maybe check out #16 and #17 to begin with, which hopefully will move you to begin at the beginning and read the entire thread.

And some questions … are Plume and Folx operating in New Hampshire? … are they subject to any regulations OR have our wonderful “fweemarketeer Koch-bot GOP and half-baked libertarians passing as GOP joined with their Democrat “friends” to allow these companies free rein.

1/ BREAKING: The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 7, 2023

The post The Big Money Behind Gender-Affirming Healthcare appeared first on Granite Grok.

Did you know that GraniteGrok is on the edge of an existential crisis? Okay, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but we are confronted with a situation that could handicap our ability to deliver content the way we have in the past on the cusp of another significant election year.

What happened?

My current job allows me to break away (most days, for a few minutes here and there) to manage content throughout the day. Some days more than others, but a few minutes here and there makes a huge difference. In a few weeks, that changes. My department had been outsourced. Five people, including myself, are getting laid off. It stinks, but we see it as an opportunity.

GraniteGrok has a heap of projects hanging in limbo that need a pilot. We have bucket list items we’ve not been able to check off. Site updates, managing the Political Action Committee, and getting someone on the road to cover stories or on the phone to follow up on them have been difficult to impossible. We want to change that.

Adding a full-time paid position can solve some problems, not just my impending unemployment. And with the 2024 presidential primary and election on tap, it would be nice to have a body that could show up, report, and dig deeper than we typically have.

The alternative to this would be a diminished online presence as work and life put GraniteGrok onto the back burner, and we do not want to cede this space. New Hampshire media is captured by the political establishment. COVID confirmed that.

GraniteGrok, on the other hand, provides a media alternative and an outlet for public opinion you can’t find anywhere else.

We need to raise a lot of money to avoid losing a step. It’s a big ask. The goal is $60,000.00 to cover a year of salary and expenses. We’ve set up a GiveSendGo to get started. It’s a lot, but it’s not. We need (12) $5000.00 donors, or (60) $1000.00 donors or (120) 500.00 donors, or (600) $100.00 donors. And lots of smaller donations which will add up as well.

One or two more significant donations from folks with the means will get us there faster if that’s you and you can help us. If that’s you or you know someone who might offer that level of support, please reach out to them or us or both.

We’re not going away regardless, but we could lose a step or two. We’d rather grow forward than slip backward.

You can use the GiveSendGo campaign page or donate through the website. If you prefer to donate by check, please email me (steve@granitegrok.com), and I’ll give you the official Grok mailing address.

And yes, this is very uncomfortable. We don’t like asking for donations, but it has kept the lights on for 17 years when we’ve not paid the operating costs ourselves. Folks have been generous and kind in the past, and we genuinely appreciate it. But this is a big corner we need to turn.

My current situation ends in a few weeks. If we can put a dent in this goal, it will allow me to pick up the reins at the end of July and run for at least a few months while we continue to fundraise to meet the goal.

If you can donate 100.00 or more, you will be added to a list of “subscribers” who, when we finally get an ad-free VIP option built – another item on the to-do list – you will automatically be eligible for that for the first 12 months as well as free access to GrokMeet’s or any other Grok event with a cover charge (when we finally get those up and running again).

We hope you can help, and thank you in advance for your support.

Please Donate Today!

The post This is a Big Ask But We Need Your Help appeared first on Granite Grok.

The below article highlights the issue not only at YDC but also at St Paul’s School and Dartmouth College, and The Diocese of Manchester. Please, journalists who care about the public interest, do an expose on this racket.

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.

I can testify that Owen Labrie received a phone call in August 2017 from the attorney partnered with Chuck Douglas in the Prout/Doe v St Pauls school suit following his trial. The contents of that phone call would have been exposed on July 18, 2019, on ABC/GMA had it not been for Amanda Grady Sexton’s and NHCADSV’s (working with This attorney, Chuck Douglas, David Vicinanzo) calls to block it from airing.

Why didn’t they want it to air?

Because the attorney told Owen Labrie that the true victim of statutory rape at St. Pauls School was not his client, Chessy Prout, but the 14-year-old son of a senior school administrator (by an 18-year-old female student who was suspended and now works in education) but that they (Prouts, the attorneys [including Chuck Douglas]) wanted Owen’s help to go after “the perpetrator with the pockets” – St. Pauls School.

If he helped them, they would give him access to exculpatory evidence, including police evidence. But they wanted to bring St. Pauls down. He was also told by this attorney, Steve Silverman Esq (introduced by Steve Kelly, Laura L Dunn, who was introduced to the Prouts by Concord PD Julie Curtin, whose budget is approved by Concord City Council – Amanda Grady Sexton), that he wouldn’t believe the crooked deals that Concord police were making.

I can tell you that AG Gordon MacDonald, NHCADSV, Julie Curtin, Chuck Douglas, David Vicinanzo, and Shaheen and Gordon are involved in an extortion racket. NHCADSV gets 20% of civil settlements. They work with these three (and possibly other law firms) are engaged.

It’s unbelievable that Chuck Douglas or Vicinanzo are even allowed to file, considering the conflicts of interest.

Rilee and Vicinanzo have been sending out letters to solicit other claimants. It’s a shopping trip for them. Just as it was at St Pauls- the Prout family was referred to attorneys before the police had even notified Owen Labrie to question him. It was and is always about the money. It has never been about transparency or helping victims.

Please consider exposing this in the public interest. I can provide more information.

Claire

The post Lawyer’s Fees in NH Youth Detention Center Cases appeared first on Granite Grok.

Maine has made a habit of following Vermont down the progressive bilge-hole, but in a surprise move, its Democrat majority legislature narrowly defeated a bill to impose a 72-hour waiting period to buy a gun.

Related: Red Flags Everywhere as Vermont’s Gun Grabbers Get Their Three-Day Waiting Period

The gun grabbers trotted out the “it reduces gun suicides” canard, which was met intelligently with facts.

 

Rep. Donald Ardell, R-Monticello, said the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, on which he serves, heard testimony that only one of the more than 114,000 gun purchases last year was used to commit suicide within that 72-hour period.

“To limit the civil right of 114,089 Mainers to protect one person from their own self-destruction is not good policy and doesn’t represent or even protect the vast majority of Mainers,” Ardell said.

 

And as we all know from watching the decline of Vermont, Democrats love suicide. They just want to run that too. If they can grab some guns along the way, more power to them. That is, after all, the single motivating factor behind everything they do. So this is a pleasant surprise but don’t get too excited. They’re still Democrats.

 

Other bills include L.D. 22, which targets straw purchases, a term used when someone buys a gun for a person who is prohibited from having one, and L.D. 1340, which would ban so-called rapid fire devices that can make semi-automatic firearms fire like automatic weapons.

 

The three-day waiting period will be back, and they will find a way to get that sh!t through the goose, and Mainers will have no one to blame but themselves.

On a related note, it’s a vast state. Perhaps the more liberty-minded counties should consider seceding to form their own. It is an idea that is growing in popularity out west.

Or you could ask New Hampshire to annex you; we haven’t entirely lost our minds yet and could use the support.

 

The post Maine’s Democrat Legislature Kills Proposed 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearms appeared first on Granite Grok.

As promised in the last Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over.  Fairly certain about a Friday Overflow-Overflow.

Also, for those prepper-minded, my last Survival Sunday:

Survival Sunday – Granite Grok

Now, let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:

 

*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Thomas Sowell on the Myths of Economic Inequality

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

    

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

Note something interesting: the news article from which this comes has been deep-sixed.  Doesn’t exist any more.

Page Not Found: 404 Not Found – CBS News

But more broadly – note something fascinating and disturbing.  How pharma has, apparently, gone after dissenting doctors, and for a long time.  Also, how “odd” that a Merck whistleblower died, at 44, of “natural causes” a few years ago, just as she was gaining real traction and influence… rather convenient, no?

Santa Barbara Coroner Concludes Anti-Vaxxer Brandy Vaughan Died of Natural Causes – The Santa Barbara Independent

Never mind the whole Globalist agenda.  Just the fact that these companies have revenue streams in the billions-with-a-B makes for scary thoughts about them using problem solvers eliminators regularly.  And how they can buy influence in general.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

As I posted in the last meme post (Monday), homosexuals will find out just how calamitous their support for Islamic migrants is when those migrants gain enough power and clout to implement Sharia law punishments on them.  And wait until they discover how expendable they are, vote-wise, compared with the kissing-up to the fecund Islamic voting demographic.  Consider this news about the popularity of the name Mohammed in Europe.  Remember, conquest by migration (and subsequent hyper-fertility) is doctrine.

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Muslim-Demographics_360p.mp4

 

The same for pro-migration Jews who advocate for more Islamic migrants – people from a religion whose very texts call us the worst of peoples:

Islamic Jew-Hatred – Geller Report

Antisemitism in the Qur’an – Winds of Jihad (sheikyermami.com)

Someone should write an open letter to Jews about this Jewicidal Yidiocy.  Hmmm…

An Open Letter to Pro-Migration / SJW Jews – Urban Scoop

 

 

Jews may have money, but Muslims have warm bodies that vote.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

The unvaccinated aren’t in hospitals.  Why, it’s almost as though natural immunity is better than the mRNA gene therapy shot.

The outright dismissal of natural immunity was one of the mental klaxons that flashed in my mind as a warning that something was awry in this push for a needle in every arm.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

I’m bothered at Michael Michelle in general.  I’m frosted cold at the deception, let alone the complicity by the enemedia.  Consider this slip…

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/michael-and-i.mp4

 

I can only imagine the c-c-c-c-coooold reception he got when they were in private.  I cannot imagine misnaming my wife like that.  There’s a video out there of Michael Michelle dancing on the Ellen show (a little much for the Grok).  You can go find it.  It’s… revealing, shall we say.  Definite content warning though.

 

 

Like his “My Muslim faith…” slip, corrected quickly by George Stephanopoulos:

 

Obama: “My Muslim Faith”

 

 

I was born and raised a Jew.  I was an atheist for 25-odd years.  I’m back to being a Jew.  In that entire scope of time I’ve never, ever, evah said “My Christian faith…” or “My Muslim faith…” or anything else.  When I was a practicing Jew, I referred to myself as one.  Unerringly.  Same as now.  Unerringly.  When I was an atheist I said I was an atheist.  Unerringly.

Look, if he’s a Muslim, say it.  Let the American public decide.  If he’s gay, again, come out (pardon) and say it.  Again, it’s the deception about something fundamental to a person’s character – one’s faith or orientation (that’s outside the mainstream) – that’s central here.  And while he’s out of office now (at least, officially) the wisdom that If someone will lie about something so large, what won’t they lie about? applies.

Lastly, for those two kids.  Imagine knowing that your birth parents gave you away (sold you?) so that you could be living props.

 

 

And as a coda – if they ARE okay with it, that tells you a lot about them, too.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

   

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Pick of the post:

 

A write-up about that:

If Amazon Thinks You’re a Racist, It Will Shut Down Your Smart Home | Frontpage Mag

And thus the dangers of connected-everything become apparent.  So, too, digital ID, CBDCs, etc.  And tech-related:

 

 

Which is why I don’t have an Alexa or a Ring doorbell.  And why, if I need to have a serious conversation, I will turn off the phone and put it in a drawer.  That’s why I use a VPN and have a scanning program “overlooking” the other apps (from a source I trust).

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

SHOCKING MOMENT: Ted Cruz Goes Nuclear On ‘So Amazingly Unqualified’ Biden Judicial Nominees

 

 

I’m not sure if I posted this before; if yes, apologies.  I know I’ve posted Cruz in general in a few instances.

OOH, this is a ruthless and scathing takedown.  Epic.  And in a sane society it would have an effect.  It won’t.  Because, OTOH, we need to grasp that the Left truly believes themselves to be made from finer clay.  And thus above taking note of any feedback by we deplorables.

 

 

The Left does not value the opinion of anyone to the Right of Stalin.  Cruz has the presentation, the arguments, and the receipts.  And it won’t matter a single iota.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Palate cleansers:

 

 

Every. Damned. Time.

Some of my property is a scant foot of soil over a bedrock slab.  So, as I planted some bushes and other plants, I told them “So, you’ll have to grow your roots sideways, buddy”.  Yes, I talk to my plants.  At least my new grape vines seem to be taking root and sprouting new leaves.

—

—

 

The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

Proving, once again, that men are out to prove they are a better woman than women.  And the women aren’t fighting back. And other men aren’t defending them, either. I guess that the Feminists that wanted to prove that they were just as good as men never thought that they’d be competing to be better women; guess the joke is on them in getting ambushed from behind. Or smiling right in front of them.

A 70-year-old man won a World Poker Tour ladies’ event in Florida on Saturday night. According to one individual, this gentleman signed up for the female-only contest simply because he “could pretend to identify as a woman because they allow anything nowadays.”

Saturday night was day one of the WPT $3,500 Seminole Hard Rock Poker Showdown in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. David Hughes wound up winning the entire event, beating out 82 women, according to PokerNews.com.

Wait!  Seventy years old? Is this like the US women’s soccer team getting beaten rather easily by over-the-hill guys past their sporting prime?  And some of the women put a bounty on his head, too:

“Playing the @WPT ladies event today, and Dave here is the only man,” Kenney tweeted. “(Filmed w/permission!) While we appreciate the dead money, I really wish men would get what these events stand for. So I put a $300 bounty on his head and Tamra & Noah Piderit matched it.  Let’s get him.”  In professional poker, a bounty is a financial reward given to the player who knocks out a certain opponent that other players have placed a “bounty” on.

Playing the @WPT ladies event today, and Dave here is the only man. (Filmed w/permission!)

While we appreciate the dead money, I really wish men would get what these events stand for.

So I put a $300 bounty on his head and Tamra & Noah Piderit matched it.

Let’s get him. pic.twitter.com/dXVZVlriAP

— Ebony Kenney | Poker & Purposeful Pleasure (@Ebony_Kenney) April 29, 2023

That bounty rose to $2,000. They lost that bet:

Except nobody knocked Hughes out and he took home the $5,555 prize.

So Feminists fought for decades and they’ve let the Patriarchy right into their “safe spaces” and are being ground down by men all over again.

And this, however, from a better man:

As I exited the men’s room, the door directly across from me, the one to the women’s room, opened. And out walked a guy. And by guy, I mean a guy. He was dressed almost identically to me, minus the blazer. And for that matter, he needed a shave. He smirked and walked back to another office in the building. At first, I thought to myself, “Dude, at least try. Put on a skirt or something. If nothing else, shave.” After he was gone it occurred to me: This guy, who was clearly a man, was using the women’s room because he could. And his smirk was a dare to me to say something about it. Something that would have been an embarrassing moment just a few short years ago was a point of pride for him. Normally, I am not at a loss for some sort of acerbic remark, but this time I was admittedly caught off-guard.

I related the story to my wife over lunch today. She looked downcast. She commented to me: “After all this time, we’ve actually regressed. Women are losing their rights to men.” She continued, “If you ran into a woman in the men’s room, you might be surprised, but you wouldn’t feel threatened. If I came out of a stall in a women’s room and saw that man, I’d be scared.” She continued:

“There are no places left that are strictly for us to have our privacy. No public restrooms, locker rooms, or fitting rooms are ours anymore.”

And not enough men are being outspoken, standing up, getting ramped up, and calling out those that are spreading this chaos into Society. They are simply letting their daughters and wives down because they don’t want to be ‘targets’ by the Wokesters.

Cowards. Simply Cowards.

(H/T: Daily Wire)

The post Once Again, A Bearded Man Erases 82 Women at a World Poker Tour Event appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s hard to predict what’s going to happen with Tucker Carlson.

Will Fox be able to ‘silence him until after the 2024 election’?  It seems unlikely.

Will he be able to produce a show on Twitter while still drawing his salary from Fox?  That would certainly be helpful since he could use it to pay for the show.

Will he accept Patrick Bet-David’s offer of $100 million to jump to Valuetainment?  That would make simply walking away from Fox more viable, although he’d have a lot of brand-building to do.

Will he do his monolog, or will he produce a full show, complete with guest interviews?  Will he produce those on some regular schedule, or just whenever he feels like he has something worth saying?

Whatever else he ends up doing, what we need him to do — what only he can do — is a show in which he periodically teaches viewers how to step through a news article or television segment and notice all the little ways in which they’re being manipulated, misled, distracted, bamboozled, hornswoggled, or simply lied to.

What I’m envisioning is something like this:  Tucker sits with a cup of coffee and goes through a series of ‘news items’ — a print article here, a televised report there, some punditry now and then — while focusing not on content, but on technique:

• Note how they’re making a bunch of scattered statements, and then jumping to a conclusion as if they’ve constructed a cohesive argument.  This is something people are really bad at catching, unless they practice it.
• Did you see how he answered a completely different question than the one he was asked?
• Do you see how they’re focusing on the points that will provoke your emotions, while ignoring the ones that might evoke thoughtful questions?  Questions they wouldn’t be able to answer?
• This is a classic example of an ad hominem attack.  If they can make you hate the messenger, you’ll be less likely to actually listen to the message.
• About two minutes ago, they used the same word to mean exactly the opposite of how they’re using it now.  Why do you think they would do that?
• Isn’t it interesting how, in dozens of different stories, written by dozens of different people, at dozens of different news outlets, they end up using exactly the same two or three relatively unusual phrases.  Does that seem like a coincidence?

And so on.

Ideally, he’d do this with both progressive and conservative news items to increase the scope of his audience.  He shouldn’t have any trouble finding them across the entire spectrum of ideologies.

I would pay to watch this.  I would buy subscriptions for my friends who homeschool their children.  I would evangelize the crap out of it.

Tucker Carlson isn’t the only person in the world who could do this, of course.

Scott Adams occasionally does this kind of analysis in his Coffee With Scott Adams podcast, but (1) his presentation is so monotonous that it’s hard to stay focused on what he’s saying, and (2) he’s been canceled, so a lot of his audience has evaporated.

But Tucker is probably the only person who could get a critical mass of people to pay attention.

A critical mass of people learning to think critically about critical issues: imagine what might come of that.

 

The post Tuckervision appeared first on Granite Grok.

More than a few folks will want to take a victory lap. The Left’s Paper of Record, the New York Times, has published an extensive report on SARS-CoV2 in which they explain how it was a byproduct of bio-engineering research at the Wuhan Lab in China.

Emphasis was added at the source.

 

One of the reasons there is no published information on such work, according to all three investigators, is because the shadow project on the mine viruses at the Wuhan institute was being funded by the Chinese military.

The State Department investigators wrote in their report: “Despite presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.” …

 

You can wade through it here (no paywall), and it’s an interesting little dance but summarized, some people did something – at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Scientists manipulated viruses in humanized mice to engineer a biological agent using SARS.

SARS-CoV2 can’t be anything but the Wuhan Flu.

Take your victory lap so we can get to the real question. Why is the New York Times admitting this, and why now? They have long been the foundry for approved narratives. We have “scientists,” experts,” the Wuhan Institute, virus research, the Chinese military, and genetic engineering.

Some people on Social Media still can’t post, and if they can, they cannot reach anyone because they got throttled over accusations of disinformation. A problem the Zuckerberg-Meister-Berger has acknowledged; Facebook fact-checkers censored true information. No flies on you, but no apologies either, so don’t expect to get your social media lockdown lifted.

Nothing will happen to the fake fact-checkers or the Karens who reported you. They’ll keep fake fact-checking right along – this is, after all, another day that ends with ‘Y’.

Why. They just took a dump in the backyard of Joe’s Chinese Laundromat. I doubt the Times launched this broadside without someone in the Biden orbit catching wind of it first. So, wassup? And what about the NIH and its gain of function research associated with the work? I think that’s the answer to the why.

It looks to me like a rescue mission. Fauci’s NIH funded some of this; his fingerprints are all over it. Every mention of NIH in the piece is couched in giant narrative pillows that soften the landing.

 

Last week, Daszak denied the EcoHealth-related experiments were dangerous. He said the NIH did not view the experiments as gain of function and that laboratory safety rules in China were followed at all times. The NIH said it “has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans.”

 

There are links to US money and the NIH, but NIH was misled by researchers (they say), and in the end, someone got cute, and none of that is their fault.

 

The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.

No one could have known they were helping the Chinese create a bio-weapon or that the US was funding what became a joint venture to engineer a pathogen with political potential.

Did they mean Joe Biden? He’s a Chinese project that’s infected America, been terrible for the US, and great for China. The virus itself wasn’t nearly as dangerous. Over 98% survived that infection. Will we be able to say the same for the Biden virus?

Then there is the vaccine for the Wuhan Flu. It seems it will be messing with us for decades, and we have Pfizer and Moderna to thank for the juice and the elites for the pressure campaign to get a needle in every arm. Well, not every arm. Many of the same folks saying this looked engineered were getting labeled as anti-science vaccine deniers.

We were right about that too.

 

 

HT | Igor Chudov

The post You’re Admitting They Engineered it, so is it Okay to Call it The Wuhan Flu Again? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Hysterical and Prejudiced. This is what President Joe Biden called politicians who are trying to protect children from life-altering surgery to alter their gender and calling them hateful bills that are trying to block medications, puberty blockers, and surgery without the consent of their parents.

“These are our children,” and no politician or parent should hamper gender-affirming care. This garbage is very rich coming from a man who will not even admit the existence of his biological granddaughter, but he wants to take ownership of our children.

Finland and Sweden were at the forefront of transgender treatment, but both countries have banned hormone-blocking medicines because of adverse side effects. What happened to your belief that we should follow the science, Mr. President? When will he and the Left realize the physical and emotional harm they are inflicting on our children? The more important question is why the Left is so fixated on pushing transgender options onto our children. What is their motivation?

Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided on gender identity. While 80% of Republicans believe that being a man or woman is determined by sex at birth, 64% of Democrats think it can be different. These stats are derived from the latest Pew Polling results on the subject. Even in a country as politically divided as ours, how can the determination of man or woman be worlds apart? It harkens back to the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson. She passed when asked to define a woman, claiming she was not qualified to answer the question. If the Left cannot define man or woman, how can they determine when someone is one or the other?

This concerted effort seems to destroy individual identity and the family unit simultaneously. The population is easier to control if the individual doubts every aspect of self, and the strength of the family unit is removed from the equation. This plan started years ago in our school system and has escalated recently. It is no coincidence that the Black Lives Matter and Pride movements became so powerful, and both went beyond their mission statements to become politically centered simultaneously. It is not a coincidence that CRT and WOKE/Pride have become hot-button topics since 2020. The Biden government wants us to believe that our children are everyone’s children and that Parents are to yield to the government as it indoctrinates our children.

The President got himself in the spotlight with words and actions this weekend. First was a violation of flag etiquette where the Pride Flag was flown at the same height and between two American flags hanging from the White House railing. Everyone knows it is inappropriate to have any flag flown at the same height as Old Glory. The second was comments by the President. He told the transgender people in attendance they were the strongest and most courageous people he had been with. The President failed to recall that only a week ago, he was addressing the latest graduates of the Air Force Academy.

He did not refer to these warriors as strong, brave, or courageous but enunciated that the graduates were the most diverse he had seen in some time. I am sorry, Mr. President, but dressing up in drag or feathers does not make you strong or courageous. The Cadets should be insulted, but you will not hear them being critical of the Commander in Chief for fear of retribution. Hopefully, they will speak with their votes in 2024 by voting Republican. With 70% of voters saying the President should not run in 2024, it will take incredible manipulation of the voting process to get him reelected.

The post Hysterical And Prejudiced People appeared first on Granite Grok.

Content marketing is one of the most effective forms of marketing. Over 97% of marketing leaders use content marketing to get their products out in the market.

It’s easy to see why. Effective content marketing campaigns can increase brand awareness, customer engagement, and leads. It can also turn an unknown company into a top influencer.

But even the best expert brand marketers make mistakes. What are the most common errors in content marketing campaigns? How can you avoid them?

We’ll tell you in this guide. Read on to discover how to be a better content marketer.

1. Lack of Focus on Target Audience

Content marketing campaigns are ideal for engaging with target audiences. It is building positive brand perception and recognition. There are also more details about content marketing discussed in Adobe Experience Cloud.

Marketers must focus on their target audience to avoid creating campaigns that fail to deliver the desired results. To avoid these errors, marketers should research their target audience thoroughly. They should pay attention to the language and messaging they use.

They should create content that addresses the needs of their target audience. Also, ensure the content marketing campaign elements align with the brand messaging and goals.

2. Lack of Emphasis on Market Research

Market research is a critical tool for successful content marketing campaigns. Once you understand the target market, creating content that connects with customers is possible.

To avoid these pitfalls, content marketers should conduct quantitative and qualitative research. It is to understand their target customers better. Also, it is used to create content that speaks to their needs and interests.

They should also research analytics. It determines which topics and keywords are trending and used by customers most.

Doing thorough market research at the beginning of a campaign will ensure content is created with the right audience in mind. It will result in more successful marketing campaigns.

3. Poorly Executed Content

Poorly executed social media content can be a significant obstacle for any content marketing campaign. It can lead to confusion and weaken the message. It can hamper the success of any campaign.

Develop an overarching theme. Use the same message across all platforms to help condense the brand’s qualities into one clear, concise message.

Attention to copy is also important. Content should always be reviewed for accuracy. It should have proper use of grammar and syntax before publication.

Lastly, successful content marketing demands creativity. Identify unique approaches to marketing a product or service. It can push the boundaries of traditional content marketing strategies.

4. Inconsistent Publishing Schedule

Businesses need to stay consistent in their content release. This is so it is fresh for customers, and their search engine rankings remain steady.

To avoid this error, plan and create an editorial calendar that outlines different types of content release dates and topics. This will ensure that the content is released regularly and customers stay engaged.

Additionally, somebody should be accountable for the publishing process. A content manager can regularly check to ensure that the content is released on schedule.

Avoid Errors in Content Marketing Campaigns

Content marketing campaigns need planning. It requires attention to detail and quality material for maximum engagement and success. To ensure success, brands must recognize and strategize to avoid common errors in content marketing campaigns.

Common errors include lack of originality, research, and streamlining content to a single target audience. Learn how to avoid these pitfalls and create successful content marketing campaigns today!

If you found this guide helpful, check out other great content on our blog.

The post 4 Common Errors in Content Marketing Campaigns and How to Avoid Them appeared first on Granite Grok.

Illinois just passed a law banning the banning of books in libraries. Actually, the state can’t really do that. What it can do is withhold state funding from libraries that restrict or ban materials because of ‘partisan or doctrinal’ disapproval.

“We are not saying that every book should be in every single library,” said Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias, who is also the state librarian [What now?] and was the driving force behind the legislation. “What this law does is it says, let’s trust our experience and education of our librarians to decide what books should be in circulation.”

 

The people of Illinois who want to exercise control over what is in their local libraries have a few options open to them.

One option is to stop accepting state funding, which is the right thing to do anyway, law or no law.

Another option is to hire — or better still, elect — librarians whose views are consonant with theirs.  Because ‘trusting the experience and education of our librarians’ is what has led to all the problems in the first place. The idea that their judgment isn’t partisan or doctrinal is absurd.

For better or worse, librarian and public school teacher have evolved into political positions.  (The idea that they are not political is as outdated as the idea that diseases are caused by evil spirits.)  It’s time we started treating them as such.

A third option — for communities who want to continue to get state funding — would be to change the way books are selected.

No library can include every book. Decisions have to be made about which books to include in a library’s collection.

If books being considered for addition to the collection aren’t banned, but merely ranked, and if rankings are created by vote of the community, then a library can have a policy that it can’t acquire (or replace) a book with a lower ranking unless it already has all the books with a higher ranking.

Sending a book to the bottom of the rankings isn’t banning it.  It’s just delaying its acquisition.

And letting the community determine the rankings is just democracy. Is Alexi Giannoulias against democracy?

 

The post Unbanning the Banning of Banning books appeared first on Granite Grok.

Jack, the ”unscrupulous” Smith, is a hired persecutor who has a failing track record when it comes to prosecuting conservatives and other high-profile politicians. Let’s take a look.

We want to thank Charles Bradley for this Op-Ed. Please submit yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.

1. Smith was instrumental in DOJ’s Lois Lerner’s IRS scandalous scheme to target conservative non-profit groups. He enabled Lerner’s criminally corrupt conduct as head of Obama and Eric Holder’s Public Integrity Section of the DOJ. That is not a joke.
   Then the DOJ and Lois Lerner admitted wrongdoing and Lerner apologized for her inappropriate and unlawful conduct.
2. He then persecuted Bob McDonnell, Republican governor of Virginia, for bribery only to have the conviction overturned unanimously by SCOTUS. Chief Justice Roberts wondered out loud how Smith read the law to cover the facts of the case.
3. Smith’s wife, Kate Chevigny, donated $2,000 to Bumbling Biden and produced a highly laudatory documentary on Michelle Obama. She vilified “Citizens United” in her documentary “Dark Money” and has donated to Act Blue, a Demolitioncrat fundraising platform and MoveOn.org, an entity controlled by George Soros. Ever notice how these political couples never share the same last name.
4. Not surprisingly, Smith is hiding the names of the other persecutors on his staff who are working to prosecute President Trump, but Tom Fitton of “Judicial Watch” has sued for those names under the Right To Know Law.
5. Jack “the unscrupulous” Smith led failed prosecution against Senators John Edwards and Bob Menendez, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on what were really political persecutions.
6. Trump haters, Andrew Weissmann, the failed Mueller team attack dog and Lisa Monaco, an unwavering Obama supporter and an architect of the Russian collusion hoax are, co-conspirators and admirers of Jack “the unscrupulous” Smith.

Conventional legal wisdom, repeated millions of times in legal conversations” but overlooked lately, is that an indictment is “nothing more and nothing less than a piece of paper”. Everybody should keep that in mind as this unlawful witch-hunt goes forward.

The post Who Is Jack Smith (The Prosecutor Against Trump)? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The RNC has scheduled the first GOP Presidential primary debate for August 23rd in Milwaukee. The host … Fox News. NOPE … no way … unacceptable … INEXCUSABLE. After what Fox has done … is doing … to Tucker there is no way that Establishment mouthpiece should be hosting a debate.

What’s more it’s impossible any longer to pretend that Fox News is either conservative or can be neutral. Fox News has picked sides in the culture war the Communists are waging … and it’s the side of the Communists. Expect the moderators to have strict guardrails about what can and cannot be asked. In other words, having today’s Fox News host a GOP debate is no really that different than having CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC as the host.

Your trusted conservative news source is celebrating diversity this LGBTQ+ Pride Month pic.twitter.com/NAXoNuhISm

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 6, 2023

Pride Month is not about celebrating the achievements and contributions of individuals … for example, there is no commemoration of the great works of art by Leonardo. It’s about drag shows for children and subordinating the American Flag to the LGBTQ+ flag. And Fox News knows that.

The post The First GOP Presidential Primary Debate Is A Slap In The Face To GOP Voters appeared first on Granite Grok.

That cutting off your boobs and perhaps, getting  prosthetic “junk” and hopping up on testosterone would be the end-all be-all.  These biological women and men that believe they can be the other sex seem to have no idea that the worldviews are completely different and that you just can’t swap one identity for another in the flash of a scalpel or a push of a syringe.

This is the lie that has been given to them, accelerated with the Second and Third Wave Feminist movements. The “You can be anything you want” is a total crock – sorry, aspirationally, sure. But if you can’t handle the academics, no, you’re not going to be an astrophysicist. Or a Brain surgeon.

And as this woman is crying over how hard and lonely being a man is, it shows that the culture and emotional makeup of women are compared to men…

Sidenote: there’s a REASON why men keep saying that a woman is impossible to know or understand (and yes, I’ve now been married to mine for over 42 years, and that STILL holds true). And I guess that women overthink what a man is or wants because, frankly, we’re much more simple. Hmm, this could be a whole series of posts, but not now.

And here is a very sad case of a woman realizing that it IS impossible to become a man – and now is even worse off than before (reformatted, emphasis mine):

These beliefs have become so ingrained into progressive culture that they are now doctrine.  The patriarchy is a fact, even though they have no proof of its existence.  Male privilege is a fact, even though women have all the same rights as men under the law in the western world.  And all men are violent and vicious towards women if given the chance, though, if that were true then feminism would not stand a chance of survival in America or Europe.  It would not be allowed to exist.

But what if the leftist perception is actually the opposite of reality?  What if women enjoy far more privileges than they could ever know? Libs Of TikTok gives us some insight into the conundrum with a recent post of a woman who “transitioned” into manhood, only to discover that being a man is so hard she now understands why men are much more likely to commit suicide…

This is really sad. Trans man realizes how hard it is to be a man when you’re really a woman.

Males and females are different and no matter what you do to your body, you can’t be the opposite sex. pic.twitter.com/Ib2in2vJrb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 10, 2023

First and foremost, it’s not enough to wear the costume of a man – Men are fundamentally and biologically different from women in every way, including how they process the world and deal with adversity.  Women enjoy the comfort of collective support and group affirmation, that is how they cope with hardship.  Men are far more likely to deal with the struggle alone; in fact, men often prefer to be alone in order to mentally regenerate.

No matter how much a woman wants to become a man due to the illusory privileges she thinks they have, she will never be a man in the head.  It’s not possible.

Or heart and emotional makeup. And we NEVER hear this aspect from the Alphabet Mafia. Certainly, not from Government Schools which seem to be a nexus point of all this.

And that’s true – almost complete opposites which is why we were created to be complementary to each other. We were made to complete each other – to fill the wholes and gaps that each sex has to the other. Is that melding perfectly? Do all those holes and seams perfectly aligned and filled?  Of course not; Life doesn’t work that way. But as this person is finding out, she’s just made it FAR more difficult (and I’d venture, far more dangerous) to find that what she was looking for.

No, she’s not an “emotionally mature man” – she can’t be. No man is going to be blubbering like she is over this. OK, some men, perhaps – but not for the world to see. But I’m betting that it’s closer to what other women would feel than other guys (but then again, I make no claim to being a woman).

And yes, while there are times a man doesn’t want to be alone, there are times it is necessary in order to sort stuff out – important, teeny-tiny, and everything in between, but Durden is right about this. It’s part of being a guy. Which most women, unless they are perfectly in tune with their man, just don’t understand or can accept.

It always seems to come down to human nature, doesn’t it – the grass is hardly EVER greener on the other side no matter what activists tell you.

And like with many posts, go read the whole thing and realize, we, via our Government, have done this to ourselves in many areas.

(H/T: ZeroHedge)

The post NO, you are NOT an “Emotionally Mature Man”; You Fell For The Delusion That Being A Man Is Only Biological. appeared first on Granite Grok.

When a supporter of our work reached out to us seeking more information on a drag queen that would be performing a Drag Story Hour in the town of Conway, NH, we knew we had to investigate the heretic. The event will take place on June 23rd at 9 am and then again at 4 pm at the Conway Public Library 1.

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

This event will be organized by the infamous White Mountains Pride 2 group, which we have covered before 3.

Indoctrination into the Radical Faeries:

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 5; Mapes moved into a commune with them in 1993 in Vermont. The Radical Faeries 6 are a worldwide network and counter-cultural movement seeking to redefine “queer consciousness” through “secular spirituality.” The Radical Faeries 7 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 8 and grew rapidly under the supervision of communist Harry Hay 9, Don Kilhefner 10, and Mitchell Walker 11.

It was with the Radical Faeries that Mapes was indoctrinated to believe that he wasn’t actually a man, but he was, in fact, “gender queer” and that it was okay to be a homosexual. They also taught him that in order to subvert the “hetero-normative” 12 society that we lived in then, they would have to preach their ideology to the youth and vulnerable disenfranchised.

One Faith Ministry and his own church:

In 2001, Mapes moved back to NYC, where he began another homosexual relationship. Mapes joined the heretical One Spirt Interfaith Seminary 13  to become a music minister, and he began preaching his heretical faith to the masses. One Spirit is a heretical church that offers services to any religion. In 2011 he was officially ordained a reverend.

Below is an quote from their site:

“The greatest learning and growth occurs in safe environments that also challenge us to ask meaningful questions, engage in honest self-reflection, and move beyond our current ways. In seminary, we invite you to bring your own particular experiences and challenges. We’ll nurture and support you as we encourage your own spiritual growth. Your radical transformation, with the support of your peers and our experienced faculty, enables your ability to be of loving spiritual service. The One Spirit Seminary ‘Deeper Curriculum’ has helped many seminary students like you fulfill their deepest and highest aspirations.”

Mapes started going by his drag name Rev. Yolanda and started a musical ministry called “Rev. Yolanda’s Old Time Gospel Hour,” which is a heretical take on the Gospels that is performed across the country in clubs, churches, “spiritual centers”, and LGBT centers.

Spotlight on Grooming:

Mapes would go on to start working in Drag Story Hours in NYC, and eventually, he would begin to perform throughout the country under his drag persona. Spouting his ideological views while grooming young children and converting parents.

Mapes would eventually go on to write a children’s book called “Queero” about a 4th grader and his friend that go on to practice witchcraft and curse the “bullies and bitches” to eternal damnation while also calling on the death of Christians by the goddess of destruction in the Hindu faith, Kali 14. Also, it ends with Kali smiling at the two main characters as they burn in a rainbow-colored eternal fire. Honestly, you can’t make this up.

Finally, we come to what might be the worst part of our investigation. Mapes and crew decide to include a child in their performance. That is a then 10-year-old drag queen called “Desmond is Amazing.” “Desmond is Amazing” is the drag name for Desmond Napoles, who was encouraged to dress in drag since he was two years old by his mother.

In summary,

Roger Mapes is incredibly dangerous, with a long history of grooming children and trying to pervert the morality of Christians. We were able to uncover his horrific start in the Radical Faeries, his ordination into a heretical and false church, and finally, we uncovered the examples of grooming and abuse that Mapes has dealt to children for years. The reason why we ended with the video of Desmond Napoles was not that it was the most shocking, but in fact, it is the end result of the indoctrination that our youth has been fed. Desmond is considered a success story, but if success is a ten-year-old child dancing sexually for pedophiles while they hand him money like he’s some stripper, and his mother records the video in the corner of the stage without any objections, then you can be sure the devil is expecting us in hell.

 

 

Visit John’s Substack for footnotes, pics, and videos related to this article.

The post Heretical Drag Show Preacher Has Been Grooming Children Since the 1990s. appeared first on Granite Grok.

Fresh from a weekend retreat in Bohemian Grove, California Governor Gavin Newsom met with reporters Monday morning to announce the state will be bringing new charges against President Donald Trump.  Citing state statue Vehicle Code § 21955 California’s state Attorney General Rob Bonta is confident they will be able to convict the embattled former president if he ever steps foot in California again. 

“The state of California takes crime very seriously!” a confident Bonta yelled loudly over the sound of sirens from the steps of the capitol building in Sacramento. “California is among the nation’s top states to commit a crime, and we’re proud to stand on that podium” Bonta continued as a small gathering of reporters turned their cameras to a nearby Lululemon store that was being pilfered that same moment.

An incredulous president Trump was asked to comment.

“Everyone knows California is a s**thole.  Literally.  The piles of waste all over the cities, like San Francisco, are bigger than the piles running the state in Sacramento.  Have you been to San Francisco lately?  Huge piles.  YUGE.  Very big. They literally have an app you can get on your phone for avoiding them.  I call it the Crap App. It’s unbelievably bad.”

When asked about the charges Trump told reporters “I haven’t been to California since my 2016 run for president, where I won in a landslide over crooked Hillary.  Did I jay-walk?  You have to in that city (referring to San Francisco).  I didn’t just jay-walk, I had to jay-walk, skip and jump across just to avoid the people patties all over the street!  It’s disgusting what they’ve done to that beautiful city.  Somebody should ask crazy Nancy about it.”

Governor Newsom is rumored to be making a run for the presidency which seems to explain his recent foray into seeking public battles with both Florida Governor Ron Desantis and now Trump.  Newsom recently threatened to charge Desantis with kidnapping for sending over a dozen migrants to California without even a courtesy call.

“He’s a small and pathetic man” Newsom tweeted of Desantis over social media from the Governor’s mansion some three thousand miles on the other side of the country.  “He had these brown people dropped off at a local church I had closed down and didn’t even bother to tell anyone.  I’m so mad I could just spit!” which he proceeded to do repeatedly into his hand as he ran his fingers through his hair.

A reporter for OAN news wondered it Newsom might find room and board for the migrants at his palatial winery which was allowed to remain open under COVID while others were forced to shut down.

“We’ve already met our quota.  Maybe they could try Martha’s Vineyard? I hear she’s hiring” Newsom chuckled holding up the latest swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated.

Another reporter for Newsmax pressed the governor on the Biden administration’s policy of letting millions of migrants into the country, flooding small towns in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, also without the consent of their people.

“Yeah, yeah, yeah, but those are red states so who cares” Newsom retorted while motioning to his security team.  The reporter was immediately ushered into a large black SUV and taken to a remote location for “processing”. 

Newsom, a recent keynote speaker at the Bill Lumbergh School of Leadership, has announced he will run for president in 2024 if his bid to be the anti-Christ is unsuccessful. 

The post Bananas: Newsom Indicts Trump In California for J-Walking appeared first on Granite Grok.

I have no idea why these things pop into my head to the tune of Rawhide, but they do. In April of last year, I had a similar epiphany. An inspired opportunity to make fun of the grooming cult that had decided it was time to come out of the closet.

 

“…, per the headline, my rarely idle mind coughed up the theme to Rawhide this morning (for no reason), and things started clicking. Movin’ sounds like groomin.’ Rawhide sounds like Gay Pride.”

 

Groomin,’ Groomin, Groomin’,
Groomin,’ Groomin, Groomin’,
Groomin,’ Groomin, Groomin’,
Groomin,’ Groomin, Groomin’,
Gay Pride!

Keep Groomin,’ Groomin, Groomin’,
Disney’s Gay Cartoonin’
Keep them teachers Groomin, GayPride!

We’ll get help from the unions,
School Boards are all tuned in,

Hide that curr-ic-ulum, Gay Pride!,

Cuz’ Johnny won’t need that penis
At school we call him Venus
So what if he commits suicide!

This time, the inspiration was less controversial unless you’re gassed up about lawnmower emissions melting polar bears. Between the schedule of my life and the persistent precipitation we’ve enjoyed, I have been unable to mow my lawn for a few weeks. Looking out the bathroom window, I could see my grass had grown tall enough to go to seed.

I’m not a lawn guy. I don’t care what’s green as long as it is. One side of my yard is well-manicured horsetail that looks like ‘lawn’ when short, and it’s green. It tolerates heat and drought, rain or flooding, and beats the other weeds back. And as long as it doesn’t get long enough to look like its name, I’m good. But tall grass has other downsides: ticks, mosquitos, and dew.

While we’ve seen very few ticks this year, some of those little bastards climb up that tall grass and hitch a ride when you walk past. Mosquitos also like to sit on tall grass and, as you wander, sneak up and stab you. I have a skeeter racket and enjoy listening to them snap as the scent of roasted insects permeates the air, but I’m not Ash Ketchum. I’m not gonna catch ’em all. With shorter grass, there are fewer targets on which to practice my backhand.

Then there’s the dew. With short grass, the dew collects on the souls of your boots. With tall grass, dew soaks your pants or your legs, and after 15 minutes, the dog is good and wet. I don’t mind wet dogs, but I live with my lovely wife and a few adult-aged children to whom I was clearly too kind, or they’d have fled the intolerant tyranny of which I am so often accused. They don’t care for wet dog, so this adds a toweling-off event after the morning euphemism.

We don’t want to do the dew, and no, the rain does not help.

You also run out of dry shoes after a few too many trips over successive days, and winter boots in June with shorts and no socks are what you expect to see in those carousels of “found at Wal-Mart” pics.

Yes, I was thinking about mowing, and for reasons I (again) can’t explain, this popped into my head fully formed.

 

Mowing Mowing Mowing
Keep that mower going
Keep that grass from growing
Too High!

 

I did not labor to complete the song as with “Gay Pride!” above, but I don’t think it would be too tricky if anyone wants to share the writing credit, assuming someone doesn’t already have it – I didn’t look. I might have heard it 30 years ago (or at some point in between) and was reminded by the view out my bathroom window. But I liked it. And since I’m in that mood, not long after the Gay Pride Rawhide gag (that sounds edgy), I came up with more ridicule using Groovin’ by the Young Rascals, but after readers suggested I’d ruined Rawhide for them, I was reluctant to release it. I’ve decided, what the heck?

It’s not the whole song.

 

Groomin’ on a School Day Afternoon
I couldn’t make you gay too soon.
I can’t imagine anything that’s better.
The world is ours whenever we’re together
There ain’t a place I’d like to be instead of

Groomin’ in a school classroom
Doing anything I can to you

There are always lots of games that we can play
You can be anyone as long as its gay
And all those happy people we could meet

Just groomin’ on a weekday afternoon

 

It needs work, but I did manage to get most of the lawn mowed before it started raining again, so there’s that.

 

The post Mowing Mowing Mowing! appeared first on Granite Grok.

We hear this all the time about Government Schools: “Get your kids out and run for the hills!”  Forget the school’s bit – now it’s the entire Government of California. If your kid even so much as makes a peep about being transgender, you’d better start saying “Yes, dear,” or you’ll get a knock on your door from Child Protective Services.

“Pack a bag – we’re taking them away.”

Government Totalitarianism via transgenderism. First, they want to control your speech, tell you what kinds of books (pornography) your kids WILL read in school, indoctrinate your kids in Government approved forms of sexuality, and if you don’t agree, they will take your children from you. Yes, they are redefining “Child Abuse” in a state statute. And not only for foster parents but for ALL parents – you WILL “affirm” your minor child’s desire to demand they are pumped up with sterilizing drugs and surgical mutilation to perfectly good organs because they have been indoctrinated to believe they can be something they never can be:

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

…Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care.

AB 957 post-amendment “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” altering the definition and application of the entire California Family Code. California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

This is the Government’s complete control of your children. At the fault of breaking Godwin’s Law, this is worse than Nazi Germany or the Communist nations that made it clear that children do not belong to their parents – they belong to the State. Is this where the US is now heading? If you think that schools secretly hiding their process of transitioning your kids into the transvestite version of themselves was awful, now we see CA being blatantly and boldly making that decision – and blaming YOU for not obeying. Californians, are you REALLY going to put up with this?

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology. By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

And this will give FULL ACCESS by Drag Queens and the militant Alphabet Mafia to be at the trigger point. The Trans-Activists are now smiling as they DO have your children – not you:

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts. Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse. Incredibly, the bill provides no definition whatsoever of what would qualify as “nonaffirming” to a child’s gender. 

Silly us – and we were only worried about Government schools doing this behind our backs.

For any made-up reason at all. Watch the uptick of all such organizations boasting that’s exactly what they do – even if they’ve had no prior history of doing such.

This means that if you, as a Parent, have made the best decision for your own child that they just need to “grow out of it” (like most studies are showing, they do), you will lose your liberty and freedom because CA will jail you. It’s what they do to Parents that abuse their children. Rethink that – you will spend years with “Bubba” as your roommate in the Iron Bar Hotel and he looks like he’s been lonely for a good long time. And not just for Dad; with transgender “women”, Mom could be in the same situation (but Bubba might like it even more).

And of course, there’s the “TAEB” (Trans-Authoritarian Emotional Blackmail”) that goes along with this by some Legislative Twit (Assembly Member Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City):

She spouts some truly toxic points here, basically saying that she knows better than you do how to raise your child.

So this particular bill adds the very important factor that affirming a child’s gender identity is in their best interest… Because if you have a 7-year old who’s talking about having a potential… to articulate that they believe that they are not the same gender as they are biologically, then it should be affirmed and through care, it should be determined…

That’s what we did with our own child, and that would give the ability for a parent who wasn’t sure to affirm and get their child the care they need.

But by saying and rejecting it… then you’re essentially rejecting your child.

Catch that? I say no to our legal son (aka “the Grandson”) all the time. Does that mean that I’m “rejecting him”? That’s what Wilson is saying. What nonsense!

I, and TMEW, say “no” all the time to him because he doesn’t know better. He doesn’t know better and doesn’t have the knowledgebase, discernment, and wisdom to decide things correctly.  HE’S A MINOR, for gosh sake – that’s why he cannot give consent to ANYTHING.

Except in California, I guess – on the most life-changing procedures that we now know on the planet short of the Death Penalty.

And if you think I was doing a “rhetorical flair” in talking about Bubba, think about this:

Child abuse charges can carry stiff punishments for those who are convicted, with the possibility of prison time and hefty fines:

If the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor child abuse case, the penalties can include a sentence of up to one year in the Los Angeles County jail and a fine of up to $6,000. If convicted of a felony offense, the defendant could face a sentence of two, four, or six years in state prison and a fine of up to $6,000. If the defendant has a prior child abuse conviction, the jail sentence can be increased by four years.

Translation:

Whaddya in for?

Oh, I refused to cut off my [daughter’s breasts | son’s penis off] and shoot them up with unnatural hormones.

The Left has truly weaponized Government against us and now is fully aware that using your own kids as hostages against you is perfectly ethical.

And to think that our forefathers started a war with the most powerful nation ever over some lousy teabags…

The post California Moves Closer to Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea; If You Don’t Affirm Your Kid’s “Transgenderism” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Explanatory Note from Rob Natelson:  In early 2020, I published what might be one of those “breakthrough” insights. It pertains to how much authority Congress may delegate to executive branch agencies—a very hot topic right now.

Critics of delegation point out that the Constitution vests “legislative powers” in Congress, not in administrative agencies. Supporters of delegation point out that government would be impossible without some delegation to the executive—and that even the First Federal Congress, which was filled with leading Founders, delegated some authority to executive branch agencies.

My insight was that perhaps the degree of permissible delegation might vary according to the specific power Congress is using. The Framers drafted each power carefully, and amid unique circumstances. The amount of permissible delegation of the postal power, for example, might be different from the permissible delegation of power to regulate commerce or impose taxes.

About a year after my proposal, a law professor published an article reaching the same conclusion. He did not credit my earlier work, so I have no idea whether he reached the same conclusion independently. (I’m a little sensitive about this, because I’ve seen my ideas appropriated a number of times without credit being given.)  Anyway, I agree with his main conclusion, but his article did show a misunderstanding the Necessary and Proper Clause. So I wrote the following essay to correct that part. The essay is somewhat technical. – RGN

* * *

In 2019, Julian Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley made public their widely-discussed article (formally published in 2021) in which they concluded that there was no Founding-era non-delegation doctrine. They found no bounds to the extent a Founding-era legislature could delegate its power, so long as the legislature did not permanently alienate that power.

In January 2020, I responded on this site. I noted some problems with their research and their conclusions. But I added that perhaps non-delegation advocates were misguided in seeking a single non-delegation principle for all of Congress’s powers. I wrote:

It is fundamental that the Constitution does not delegate to Congress “the legislative power.” Rather, it delegates about thirty discrete legislative powers . . . . Specific words and phrases define the scope of each of these powers. The framers were careful drafters, and most of these words and phrases were borrowed from contemporaneous legal or governmental practice. For example, to “regulate Commerce” was an Anglo-American legal phrase embracing the law merchant, protective tariffs, governance and facilitation of navigation, and certain related subjects. Similarly, the framers borrowed the phrase “establish Post Offices and post Roads” from British postal statutes. It encompassed building post offices and intercity roads, designating postal routes and tolls, hiring employees, enacting criminal penalties for misuse of the postal service—everything necessary and customary to develop a working postal system and an intercity highway system.

The extent to which each enumerated power authorized Congress to delegate to executive sub-agents depended on the constitutional words describing the power.

In 2021, Professor Chad Squitieri published a law review article reaching—independently, I assume—a similar conclusion. As Professor Squitiri wrote in his Abstract:

When discussing the nondelegation doctrine, courts and scholars frequently refer to Congress’ “legislative power.” The Constitution, however, speaks of no such thing. Instead, the Constitution vests a wide variety of “legislative powers” (plural) in Congress . . .

As I had, Professor Squitieri advocated that the extent of permissible delegation for each legislative power should be ascertained from the relevant text and surrounding circumstances.

We are indebted to Professor Squitieri for thus furthering the debate. I do, however, wish to address what I see as a shortcoming. That shortcoming is his use of the Necessary and Proper Clause as a sort of omnibus delegation vehicle for each enumerated power. He writes:

This Necessary and Proper Clause provides the text-based standard for determining how Congress can delegate its Article I, Section 8 powers. The key nondelegation question for the legislative powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 is therefore as follows: Whether an objective reader in 1788 would have understood a particular delegation to be a “necessary and proper” means of “carrying” a particular Article I, Section 8 power “into execution.”

As some readers know, I concluded long ago that—contrary to prevailing modern orthodoxy— founding generation lawyers construing a document usually preferred the parties’ subjective understanding over the document’s objective meaning, for Qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice. (pdf)  Because the Constitution was drafted to be construed by then-prevalent interpretive methods, I likewise think we should apply the ratifiers’ subjective understanding when available and coherent. But that is not the point I wish to make today.

In statements such as the one just quoted, Professor Squitieri effectively treats each legislative power as having two components: (1) a general description of the power and (2) the Necessary and Proper Clause authorization to legislate in that area.

I will admit that the framers sometimes drafted in that manner. In Article III, Section 2 they first listed the components of “the judicial Power” and afterwards formally granted those components. (I do not subscribe to the theory that the first sentence of Article III itself vests authority (pdf).) However, the first 17 clauses of Article I, Section 8 (and Congress’s other powers) are not merely recitals to be carried into effect by congressional action under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause

In 2004, I published “The Agency Law Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause” (pdf). Since then, my work has been supplemented and confirmed by a substantial amount of published research on the subject—not just by me, but also by Gary Lawson, Guy Seidman, and Geoff Miller. (See, for example, this book.)

Our underlying findings are pretty much consistent:

• During the Founding Era the term “necessary” in this context was a synonym for “incidental.”

• As several leading Founders pointed out, the Necessary and Proper Clause granted no additional authority to Congress. It simply told the reader that the doctrine of incidental authority, which usually inhered in enumerated-power documents, also applied to the Constitution. This distinguished the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation, which had explicitly excluded incidental authority.

• Incidental powers were those both (1) “less worthy” than those mentioned explicitly (“principal powers”) and (2) tied to their principals by custom or reasonable necessity.

• The meaning of “proper” is less certain. It appears to mean that congressional legislation exercising incidental powers must be consistent with then-understood duties of public trust. For example, regulating an incidental activity must be done for the bona fide purpose of governing an activity within Congress’s explicit authority to govern. It must not be a pretext to serve some unenumerated purpose.

Unfortunately, Professor Squitieri’s article shows no awareness of those research findings.

Application to Non-Delegation

Because the Necessary and Proper Clause is merely a rule of construction, the scope of each power the Constitution grants should be determined from the wording and ambient history of that power alone. There is no need to consult the Necessary and Proper Clause except as a reminder that Congress may regulate incidents in a good faith effort to regulate principals. In exercising the Commerce Power, for example, surely Congress may require labeling standards, even though labeling is technically production or packaging rather than “commerce.”

Assuming that Professor Squitieri and I are correct about the hypothesis we hold in common, we originalists have some work to do. To be sure, some of that work already has been done: An example, as I mentioned in my 2020 entry and elaborated here (pdf), is the scope of the power to “establish” post offices and post roads. The breadth of that scope (see above) suggests that the Congress’s ability to delegate in that area is limited—because the Constitution grants only to Congress, not to any other entity, the power to “establish.”

On the other hand, the enumerated power to “provide and maintain a Navy” contemplates Congress as playing principally a funding role, delegating extensively to executive-branch officers—a conclusion fortified by the Constitution’s designation of the President as commander-in-chief. (I address the Founding-era meaning of “provide” here (pdf).)

For other powers, however, the research has not yet been done. For example, to what extent does the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” comprehend power to delegate that authority to the President? And does the answer differ according to the nature of the financial exaction?

In short, I believe Professor Squitieri is likely correct in his most important conclusion: The scope of permissible delegation must be determined from the text of each power and the surrounding context. But there is no need to insert the Necessary and Proper Clause into the equation, except as a useful reminder.

 

Rob Natelson | The Tenth Amendment Center

The post A ‘Necessary and Proper’ Look at “Nondelegation” Doctrine appeared first on Granite Grok.

It is a sad tale of living with the consequences of an ideology that created the problem with which you find yourself. A young liberal woman is fed up with dating liberal men. She wants to find a Real Man, but they are all conservatives.

 

She opened the video, talking about “one of the saddest realizations” she has ever had, which she claimed was, “as a liberal woman, it is really hard to find a man who is willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today’s day and age who is not a conservative.”

 

Ouch.

What are her gripes about the liberal men for whom the ideology to which she clings is responsible? “[S]he’s looking for “a man who wants to pay on the first date, who wants to open your door, who has that want and desire to take care of you and to provide” but can’t find one “who is not a conservative.”

So, she is a typical liberal?

 

Multiple users left her frank responses in the comments. One observed, “All of the benefits, none of the responsibilities.” Another mocked her logic, saying, “Why can’t I find a man with conservative values who’s not a conservative! Like what?”

Yet another made the same point, replying, “’I want a traditional man without being a traditional woman’ lol.”

 

I know a fair share of traditional conservatives, and not one of them tells their wife to stay home and bake cookies. Both the man and woman do what brings value to their lives and relationships, assuming responsibilities that make the most sense for their circumstances and adapting when the circumstances change. The value is creating a safe home and a strong family because strong families make strong nations.

TikTok user @ms_petch is a victim of her own talking points on many levels, not the least of which is this.

 

In subsequent videos posted to her account, ms_petch addressed her critics. In one, she insisted that she just wants a man who has some “traditional values while also being very progressive in social issues.”

 

Your progressive social issues paradigm is the problem. It exists to destroy the family and masculinity. The two are incompatible, and if you can not escape your progressive paradigm, you will continue to be disappointed.

 

 

The post Liberal Lady Can’t Find a ‘Real Man™’ Who Isn’t Conservative appeared first on Granite Grok.