Tuesday • May 6 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XIX
Manchester, N.H.
This has been my plan for some time. I do NOT want a “unity” ticket … if “unity” means a veep who is a tool of the donor class, darling of the Regime-Media, grifter. Stated more succinctly, I do NOT want Nikki on the ticket.
Last night (1/15), after coming in THIRD in Iowa, Nikki gave a long … much too long … victory speech in which she claimed that Trump and Biden have much in common. Actually, donor-puppet Nikki has much more in common with Biden than Trump has with Biden.
For one thing, Nikki and Biden both believe in forever wars to finance the military-industrial complex. For another thing, Nikki’s and Biden’s tough talk on China is belied by their actions. And third, Nikki is NOT going to secure the border because her donors support open borders.
I plan on voting for the GOP nominee. Unless Nikki Haley is within 1000 miles of the ticket. I can hold my nose and vote for a lot of turds. But that human being is openly hostile to my beliefs.
I’ll leave it blank or vote for RFK.
— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) January 15, 2024
The post NeverNikki (continued) appeared first on Granite Grok.
It’s déjà vu all over again! The November 3, 2020, General Election in Windham produced the largest numerical discrepancy in the history of NH between election day results and the subsequent hand recount.
That led to the RARE CORRECTIVE ACTION by the NH Attorney General and Secretary of State to appoint an election monitor to oversee Windham’s next federal election, which took place on September 13, 2022.
Unfortunately, that appointed election monitor did not prevent Windham election officials from producing YET ANOTHER FLAWED ELECTION – as documented by the Government Integrity Project’s Ken Eyring and Tom Murray in their complaint that was filed with the NH Attorney General on December 21, 2022.
Eyring and Murray’s complaint regarding the September 13, 2022 was filed on December 21, 2022, The complaint identified 33 issues with dozens of links to official election documentation that were produced by Windham’s election officials. The AG took more than a year to respond.
The result of the complaint is an UNPRECEDENTED APPOINTMENT of yet ANOTHER ELECTION MONITOR for next Tuesday’s First In The Nation Primary election in Windham. Back to Back election monitors in two consecutive federal elections.
That’s Einstein’s definition of insanity!
There’s much more to be disturbed about… and Eyring and Murray brought the receipts while appearing on Neil Johnson’s Lumberjack Logic podcast. If you care about election integrity, this video is a must-see!
After viewing the podcast, if you are not satisfied with the NH Attorney General and his recurring “solution” to this recurring problem… feel free to contact his office and respectfully let him know how you feel:
Phone: 603-271-3658
Email: attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov
The Windham Town Clerk and Election Moderator can be reached here:
Phone: 603-434-5075
Email: townclerk@WindhamNh.gov
There’s more to this story… stay tuned…
The post BREAKING: NH AG ADMITS to ANOTHER Seriously Flawed Election In Windham appeared first on Granite Grok.
Two weeks ago, I wrote an article laying out the political class’s struggle to preserve its legitimacy by fighting to regain control over the digital information space. The piece built on Martin Gurri’s thesis that the wide adoption of the internet has caused an information revolution that, similar to the adoption of the printing press, has allowed dissent to grow and spread beyond the control of the ruling classes.
The results have been political shocks like the Arab Spring, the passage of Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump.
If the twenty-first century has been a war to preserve the establishment’s legitimacy, the current battle in the United States is the 2024 presidential election.
There’s truth to the familiar cliché that the next election is always the most important in history. As the federal government grows, spends more of our money, and intrudes more in our daily lives, the stakes of elections get higher and higher.
That still holds true for 2024, but there is much more going on. In Anatomy of the State, after defining the state as the “organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area,” Murray Rothbard dedicates a chapter to how states preserve themselves.
In Rothbard’s words:
While force is [the ruling class’s] modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. . . . Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.
In the United States, the political establishment has for many years evoked democracy to legitimize its actions in the eyes of the public. Doing so transforms any action they take into an embodiment of the people’s will and any opposition into a selfish denial of everyone else’s wishes.
But the internet allowed the public to see that many views and beliefs that had been presented as fringe were in fact popular—often even more popular than so-called mainstream ideas.
That revelation bolstered the antiestablishment movements of the 2010s—Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the Ron Paul Revolution, and Trump’s 2016 campaign. And it sent the political establishment into a crisis of legitimacy.
Tens of millions of Americans sent Donald Trump to the White House in one of the biggest repudiations of the established political class in American history. In response, instead of reflecting on why so many Americans were so fed up with them, the establishment decided to frame Trump as the root cause of all the nastiness and hostility aimed their way. According to them, one man was corrupting America with hate, greed, and Russian propaganda.
That thinking has culminated in years of establishment attempts to remove Trump from power and later to bar him from ever holding office again. First, there was discussion of ousting him using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Then came the attempt to tie him to Russian intelligence. Next, they tried to impeach him twice. Finally, they charged him with felonies. Now, some states are attempting to remove him from the 2024 ballot for a crime he hasn’t even been charged with.
The establishment is unwilling to admit that they are the reason Trump was elected. But, ironically, by attempting to disqualify him from participating in the election, they undermine the illusion of democracy—their main source of legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans. It’s hard to see how that will go well for them.
Connor O’Keeffe (@ConnorMOKeeffe) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. He has a master’s in economics and a bachelor’s in geology.
Connor O’Keefe | Mises Wire
We want to thank Mises Wire for being a partner and supporter of Independent Media. You can support us here, or if you prefer to donate by check, email steve@granitegrok com for details.The post The Establishment Is Unmasking Itself appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Bidenomics is working!”
At least that’s what Joe Biden and his administration tell us every chance they get, citing cherry-picked statistics to prove their point. They tout the most recent inflation figure of 3.4 percent and compare it to last year, when the inflation rate was a crippling 6.5 percent.
That sure makes it look like Bidenomics is working. That is until you look at the rate of inflation just before Biden took office. In 2020, it was 1.4 percent.
They tell us that last year, gas prices averaged $3.70 a gallon. Now, they average $3.05. That sounds pretty good, but they never mention that in 2020, around the time they took office, gas prices were at $1.74 per gallon.
The reality is that Bidenomics is an abysmal failure, and most people know it.
Joe Biden seems guided by a four-point strategy – something he probably picked up during his 50 years in the Washington swamp:
Of course, failed politicians always try to make their disastrous policies look more appealing. They gussy them up with carefully chosen statistics, distorted truths, semantics, and sometimes audacious lies. In politics, it’s often said they’re trying to put lipstick on a pig (PLOP).
This administration has used that same strategy to spin the critical situation on our southern border. No one can PLOP better than DHS Secretary Mayorkas. He thought that calling it a “challenge” would help eliminate any concerns the public may have about the utter chaos caused by Biden’s policies. “Chaos” has such negative overtones, after all. Coupled with the brazen lie that “the border is secure,” Mayorkas did everything he could – not to solve the problem, but to make it look better than it actually is. He’s now facing impeachment for repeating that very same lie to Congress.
He’s not the only one in this administration who tries to put lipstick on a pig. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, put together a silly propaganda video touting the marvels of electric vehicles. That was before nearly 4,000 car dealers wrote to Joe Biden expressing deep concerns about the lack of demand for EVs. Now, Hertz announced that it will replace 20,000 electric cars with gas-powered vehicles.
It all suggests that the people on Biden’s team were selected based on two criteria: their minority status and their willingness to PLOP on demand.
Bill Clinton famously said, “I feel your pain.” These people don’t even pretend to feel it. But they do know how to inflict it. And they seem utterly unfazed by the hardships they’ve created in our economy, on our border, on our streets, and in the world. They’ve shown no interest whatsoever in fixing any of these problems. Maybe the best they can do is try to make them appear less disastrous.
Biden’s dismal approval numbers tell us that most voters have caught on to his four-point strategy. We’ll know soon enough if the country is finally finished with the deception, diversion, and dishonesty. Maybe they’re ready to elect a president – any president – whose policies don’t have to be embellished, adorned, decorated, or disguised just to make them seem more palatable. Maybe the agenda of our next president will actually benefit the American people.
The post Night Cap: Bidenomics – Better Than Abysmal is Still Miserable appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Write-In Joe Biden Campaign will likely result in a Biden “win.” There isn’t anyone else on the ballot to attract votes away from him, and New Hampshire Democrats are good little socialist doobies as long as Bernie isn’t a choice— so, dear leader or bust. But that’s less interesting than this.
It is, in true Democrat party/policy fashion, virtue signaling. A Biden win in New Hampshire doesn’t mean anything. The DNC doesn’t recognize it. The party won’t seat any delegates. So, the effort is smoke and mirrors—PR for a political dead animal—a mirage. And good on them for trying and wasting money on it. Anytime you can get Democrats to waste their money is a good day.
The budget for the main write-in campaign is somewhere around $70,000 — a comically paltry sum in modern presidential campaigns — which is mainly going toward printing signs explaining the write-in process and covering the cost of one staffer and one part-time consultant.
An affiliated super PAC would not disclose its budget. But a source familiar with the effort said it had raised roughly $500,000 by mid-December. That’s enough to pay for some mailers and some digital advertisements, but not enough to run television ads or staff a real field operation.
It is true that if Biden had an actual campaign and primary in the Granite State and had actual challengers, he’d have had to spend more than the $570,000, give or take, raised to write in his name, meaning it might not be the great gift of wasted money my headline implies. But it is an empty waste of money. Nothing that is gained is real. A cheap trick meant to fool the gullible into believing what happened in New Hampshire had meaning beyond reality. People who would typically be hobnobbing with national party and media elites across the state, including perhaps the man himself, found themselves with too much free time they are trying to fill.
Related: Why NH Democrats Should Be Proud to Lose Their Primary
The write-in campaign is busy work – speaking of which. If I’m not mistaken, any ballot with a write-in must be hand-counted because the machine can’t tell whose name is in the space. Poll workers might be busy working longer hours to count them, having any number of machine-counted ballots turned into hand-counted paper ballots at every polling place in the state.
Isn’t that a threat to Democracy or something? I thought Democrats were opposed to that sort of thing. Or is it okay when it’s Democrats? And how is this not the epitome of current Democrat politics? A void without meaning, onto which Obama’s faithful water carriers scribble, Joe Biden.
That describes his entire presidency—a blank space filled in by the people placed around him.
The post NH Primary: Any Day You Can Get Democrats to Waste Their Money is a Good Day appeared first on Granite Grok.
Jill Biden has some explaining to do about her behavior and enabling of Joe to run for reelection, but instead, she takes shots at anyone who criticizes her stepson, Hunter. Jill was recently interviewed by MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host, Mika Brzezinski.
Mika is not the person you would turn to if you want an in-depth questioning of someone, and in the case of her interview with the First Lady, Mika was in her usual form. This interview was an exercise in throwing softball questions instead of queries that would get answers to what is really happening in the Biden White House and within the First Family. The interview was an embarrassment and showed a lack of journalistic integrity. The First Lady took full advantage of the situation. She used the session to garner sympathy for her beleaguered stepson and give her spin on how valuable Joe’s age and experience are for the American people. It was more of a campaign spot than a news interview.
Megyn Kelly blasted Mika and called the effort a failure. “She did not ask her any hard questions. And it’s like if you’re gonna sit there and tee it up for the First Lady to say, ‘This is cruel what they’re doing to my son,’ then you better – if you actually consider yourself a journalist who criticizes other journalists – get ready for a couple of tough follow-ups, madam,” Kelly explained, referencing the topic of Hunter Biden’s indictment, which Jill and Mika touched on.
Jill Biden says the candidate’s children should be off limits. That was certainly not the case with any of Trump’s children, and the media assaulted all of them, from Barron to Don Jr. The difference here is that Hunter Biden is under criminal indictment. The facts we have paint an ugly career of using his father’s political career to shake down foreign companies and governments for millions as he enriched the Biden Cartel.
Hunter Biden has done little to keep a low profile and has put himself in the spotlight and hot seat. It was Hunter who posted his porn videos on PornHub and boasted about his career as an artist, where he sold child-like pieces of art to his father’s wealthy donors for millions. Hunter is a self-proclaimed sex and alcohol addict and deserves no easy treatment from Congress or the media. He deserves all the scrutiny and then some.
Jill was asked about Joe’s age and gave her well rehearsed answer. Joe’s age is not a negative but a tremendous advantage. She claims he knows every player on the international stage, and his 50 years of experience makes him the right person to be President today. “Joe has lived history,” said Mrs. Biden. The problem for America is he may have lived it but cannot remember it.
To anyone paying attention, the Bidens have much to answer for, all four of them. Joe, Jill, Hunter, and First Brother Jim are the key players in the Biden Cartel and the sophisticated con job being played on Americans. Many say Jill’s actions, or inactions, in pushing Joe to pursue another term is tantamount to elder abuse. The three Biden men are orchestrating the manipulation of banks and money to hide millions from the law and Congress.
Hunter is in contempt of Congress by refusing to appear for a scheduled deposition. Under threat of penalty, he has changed his mind and will appear. The Democrats will do their best to protect the Biden’s. The Republicans are chomping at the bit to get Hunter and Jim under oath. One thing is guaranteed: Jordan and Comer, will have much tougher questions than Mika.
The post “What They Are Doing To Hunter Is Cruel” appeared first on Granite Grok.
Since his abrupt departure from FOX News, Tucker Carlson has become more popular than ever. He’s got his Twitter thing and now the Tucker Carlson Network. He has many avenues for content, his opinion, and interviews, and he has a few thoughts about Iowa, Necon Nikki Haley, and my Governor, Chris Sununu.
Sununu endorsed Haley and has been a relentless advocate to the point of nausea, and I continue to insist that had he wanted to hurt Trump in New Hampshire, Sununu should have endorsed him instead. Haley is bad for a list of reasons. Tucker covers a few in the full clip, like war profiteers, illegal alien invasions, and liberal donors, which should raise even moderate Republican eyebrows. She’s also bad on free speech, among other matters.
Tucker Carlson UncensoredThe entire thing is worth a watch (17 min). Tucker lists a number of problems with Haley, both past and present, donors and policies, that should cause independents to run screaming toward any other candidate. For our purposes, we’ve clipped the bit in the middle that includes Governor Chris Sununu. History. Archive. Posterity. Remeniscing. “Hey, you remember that time Tucker Carlson said, “Nikki Haley is a committed neo-liberal just like her creepy little friend Chris Sununu?” Good times.
We’ve been calling out Sununu for longer than he’s been governor, so, yes, and we’ve got the receipts. Sure, he’s been good on taxes and guns, and he will veto a lot of liberal garbage from either side, but he’s a social liberal, and given a chance to do the right thing for liberty, he took a pass or kicked it n the ass.
I’m not going to say we can do better, but if you aren’t willing to try, why bother getting up in the morning? It’s only human liberty and natural rights.
Here’s the clip. The entire piece is available here.
The post Tucker Carlson: “There is Probably No Republican Office Holder In the Country Who Hates Republicans More Than Chris Sununu” appeared first on Granite Grok.
There’s a therapeutic technique called reframing, which is a fancy name for changing your behavior by finding a new way to look at an old situation. Often, it consists of simply replacing a habitual question with a more insightful one.
When we think about majorities, we tend to ask questions like, How many people should have to agree on something before they can get their way?
Usually, that’s anything over one-half. But for some more ‘serious’ questions (usually involving taxes or constitutional amendments), it may be higher: three-fifths, two-thirds, three-fourths.
(To amend the federal constitution, you need two-thirds in both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. I don’t know of any situations that require more than a three-fourths majority.)
But if we look — as we frequently should — at the Declaration of Independence, it says that government gets its just power to act from the consent of the governed.
Now, you may be thinking something like: It’s through voting that the people express their consent.
But the thing is, in your heart, you know that isn’t true. And you can prove it to yourself by pondering a simple question:
Assuming you want to keep both your kidneys, how many people in your town (or county, or state, or country) would have to vote to take one of them before you would consider that expressing your consent? What kind of majority would suffice? Three-fourths? Nine-tenths? Ninety-nine percent? Everyone but you?
The people who wrote our founding documents also knew that a majority vote can’t express consent. If you have doubts, look at Article V of the federal constitution, which says that no state can be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. If forty-nine other states wanted New Hampshire to give up one of its senators, it wouldn’t be enough.
That’s what consent means.
To put that another way, if you have consent, you don’t need to vote. If you’re voting, it’s because you want to deprive some person or group of consent.
I think one way that we can move back towards government by consent would be to change the question that has so insidiously led us away from it.
That is, instead of always asking
How many people should we need, to get what we want?
we should instead get into the habit of asking
How many people are we willing to screw over, to get what we want?
The answer to the first question tends to be some arbitrary percentage. But the answer to the second question — at least, in a civilized society — is zero.
This isn’t a new idea. It’s been around forever.
Remember Hippocrates? First do no harm.
Remember the Golden Rule? What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man.
Remember the adage that we’ve told to countless generations of kids? The ends don’t justify the means.
If the number of people we’re willing to screw over to get what we want is not zero, then we’re basically saying that our theory of government is might makes right.
And if that’s the case, then we should be completely open about it… and be ready to accept the consequences (in any caliber) without complaining.
The post Reframing Majority Rule appeared first on Granite Grok.
Thanks to everyone for the pig pile of content I’ve received recently. I promise I am not ignoring you, but there are only so many hours in a day and so much material that it makes sense to share in any given 24-hour period. I’m working to get it all out there, especially if it is NH Primary-related.
The drop dead date for that is fast approaching.
I am adding extra content in the early hours of the day and as late as Midnight to catch up, so keep it coming. I will need a lot of content for Monday and Tuesday as I will be in Manchester from Sunday until Tuesday afternoon, reporting with the 603 Alliance from Radio Row. I can blog from there, but it helps if I have help. And I’ve been bumping my content to make space for the influx.
I’d also like to encourage all of you who suddenly have so much to say to keep saying it. Don’t let the passing of the primary end your writing or reading activism. It is nice to have traffic spikes around high political holidays like the FITN primary, but as you know, the news and opinion happen every day all year round, and it all matters.
Not everyone can write an op-ed or a political piece. If you can, don’t stop. We’ll help. And as things calm down, we’ll need the content.
We’ll share your op-eds without judgment. We have had Pro-Vivek, Anti-Chrisite (no one liked him much), pro-Nikki, NeverNikki, pro-Trump, not-so-Trump, and while I’ve tried to get more DeSantis input, most of it in both directions has come from … me. It’s not my fault we didn’t share more DeSantis Rah-Rah; almost no one sent me any, but I made it clear early that we’re not taking sides in this primary, and your voice matters even if it’s not mine or Ed’s or Ray’s or Aaron’s or anyone else.
I’m not sharing Dem drivel, but just about anything else that is reasonable will get ‘Ink’ on our pages. We want to create a space for debate, and you help us do that, so thank you.
Don’t stop. Please keep it coming, especially after the primary fog of war moves away from the Granite State.
Remember, the Left never rests, so neither can we.
On an unrelated note, I think I’ve decided on a new tagline inspired by my Memoriam to Ed Nail and Jon Irish – whom I am very much missing this week.
“Liberty Is More Precious Than Life, and Tyranny Never Rests – So Neither Shall We.”
Criticism is, as always, welcome.
The post Quick Note to, Well – Everybody! Your Voice Matters! appeared first on Granite Grok.
A felony hit and run is a serious crime with severe consequences. It happens when someone leaves the scene of an accident without providing proper identification or assisting those who might be injured. This crime can turn a simple traffic accident into a complicated legal issue.
This crime can lead to severe consequences. In this article, we’ll talk about what can happen if you commit a felony hit and run.
Sentencing, Fines, and ProbationOne big consequence of a felony hit-and-run is jail time. Depending on the state and the damages, you could spend a number of years in prison.
Another consequence is fines. The law can make you pay a lot of money for running away from an accident.
You could also be put on probation. This means you’ll have to follow strict rules to stay out of jail. These penalties can change your life.
Permanent Criminal RecordA felony hit and run can result in a permanent criminal record. This record can follow you for life and affect many parts of your future. It can make it harder to get a job because employers often check criminal histories.
Renting a home can be challenging too, as landlords may not want to rent to a felon. It’s essential to understand this consequence before making any decision.
Hiring an auto attorney can guide us in understanding the effects of a criminal record. You can view here for more reasons to hire an auto accident attorney. They are experienced in accident cases and are always ready to assist you.
License Suspension and RevocationLicense suspension or revocation is a big result of a felony hit and run. Your driver’s license might be taken away for a while. If you’re caught driving without it, you’ll get into more trouble.
This can make life difficult, especially if you rely on driving to work or get necessities. It’s not just a short-term problem, either. Getting your license back can be tough, with long processes and tests.
Impact on Auto InsuranceA felony hit and run can also have a major impact on your auto insurance. Upon conviction, your insurance company may view you as a high-risk driver. This usually results in a substantial increase in your insurance premiums.
Mental and Emotional TurmoilA felony hit and run can cause a lot of stress and worry. You might feel guilty for what you did. You might be scared about the future, too.
It can be hard to sleep or focus on your daily tasks. You may feel alone or like no one understands you. This is what we call mental and emotional turmoil.
It’s important to get help if you feel this way. You could talk to a counselor or a trusted friend. Remember, it’s okay to ask for help when you’re feeling down.
The Lasting Effects of a Felony Hit and RunA felony hit and run is a serious crime with a lasting impact. From heavy fines and jail time, a permanent criminal record, to license suspension and emotional distress, its consequences are far-reaching. The act doesn’t only change the victim’s life but also that of the perpetrator.
Remember, the repercussions of a felony hit and run extend beyond the immediate, affecting every aspect of life. Thus, it’s crucial to realize the long-term effects and avoid such actions. It’s always better to face the situation responsibly than to flee and face harsher consequences later.
If you find this article helpful, you may visit our blog for more content.
The post Understanding the Consequences of a Felony Hit and Run appeared first on Granite Grok.
Memes, I gots memes! Here are the ones from Monday. And yes there will be a Friday edition too.
Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
Coming sooner than you fear, I fear.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
I have an idea. Let’s let people like this in by the metric f*ckton.
It was hammered into me in my youth how dangerous butter and cream and fat were. Margarine – made, IIRC, from bubbling hydrogen through oil at high temperature (hence the term “hydrogenated”) – was considered healthy. Eggs were – at the time – also restricted. Recommend this book highly:
The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet
If this can be proven, he needs to hang.
Control the information flow, control what people believe.
Taqiyya: Deception and Lying in Islam (thereligionofpeace.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
Everyone has physical “preferences”… but there’s no factory cranking out idealized partners. (Long story and many details omitted, my then-obsession with specific aspects of female appearance made me overlook someone who, in retrospect, really liked me. What might have been…) Related, to me:
IMHO, these two go together.
It was thanks to the movie SE7EN that I got “turned onto” the Catholic concept of the Seven Deadly Sins (and, in parallel, the Seven Cardinal Virtues). What I see in our society is a devolution towards sin in general, with so much of society having vanity as a lead-in. A reminder:
And IMHO this corruption of our society is deliberate.
MassResistance is a good group fighting this.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Gazans fleeing after having been warned to evacuate.
Amnesty? What? Let me Dr. Paul Alexander be as clear as I can be Dr. Emily Oster & all you INSANE illogical Branch COVIDian MADMEN & WOMEN; there must be no fuck*ng forgiveness, EVER, for fake COVID! (substack.com)
Magnificent rant.
I don’t want to live that long.
And you still live there because…
Interesting… apparently built to be able to switch?
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the Post:
A moment of anticipation and happiness:
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate cleansers:
—
—
I suspect this is like a horoscope; you look for things that you want to apply to you. Still, I hit just about every one of these.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back on Friday for more memes. Same meme time. Same meme channel.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.
Ambidextrous by birth, professional baseball player Pat Venditte was able to pitch about equally well with either hand.
And he had a special six-fingered glove that he could use to catch with using either hand.
This gave him an advantage in that he could switch his pitching hand depending on the handedness of whatever hitter he was facing.
All other things being equal, a right-handed batter would prefer to face a left-handed pitcher, and a left-handed batter would prefer to face a right-handed pitcher.
So when facing a right-handed batter, Venditte would pitch right-handed. When facing a left-handed batter, he would pitch left-handed.
He was the game’s first ‘switch pitcher.’
This was never an issue until a game in 2008. Venditte was on the mound when switch hitter Ralph Henriquez came up to bat. Over the course of several minutes, Henriquez kept switching between the two batter’s boxes, and Venditte kept switching between his two pitching hands, each trying to get an advantage over the other.
After several more minutes of discussion, during which it became clear that the Rules of Baseball — baseball’s version of the Constitution — did not have anything to say about the situation, the officials made a decision: They made Henriquez choose a box to bat from, and then Venditte could choose a hand to pitch with. And the game was able to continue.
Many people were amazed that in a game as old and as popular as baseball, it could be possible to come up with a situation that no one had ever seen before.
But to me, the most remarkable thing about the situation is that the ruling by the officials did not create a rule that any other officials were bound to follow. It was left to the Rules Committee — baseball’s version of Congress — to decide how this kind of situation should be handled in the future.
(That committee, by the way, came up with a rule that differed from the ruling on the field. From now on, they said, it’s the pitcher who has to choose a hand to pitch with before the at-bat begins, and then the batter can react accordingly. This gives the advantage to the batter. It would be more fair, I think, to make them play rock-paper-scissors before each at-bat, but it’s not up to me.)
And it’s remarkable because it provides such a perfect model for how judges should act in our courts.
Consider the case of Francois Momolu Khalil, who was convicted of raping a woman in Minnesota. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that, for technical reasons, while Khalil’s actions were reprehensible, they were not consistent with the statutory definition of rape, so his conviction was overturned.
The outcry was immediate. Almost everyone seemed to think that the conviction should stand because, obviously, the legislature meant for the definition of rape to cover Khalil’s actions, and so the court should have just declared that what the law meant was different from what it said.
But the Justices said that it wasn’t their job to rewrite statutes from the bench… especially when the words of the statute would remain unchanged.
Which is exactly how it should work. But it’s so rare for this to happen that it was shocking — bordering on incomprehensible — to most people.
It’s clear to everyone in MLB that the rules committee has all rule-making power so that it can make rules. On the other hand, the officials in a game have only the power to make rulings that apply at a particular moment. These rulings don’t set precedents. They aren’t binding on anyone. They just allow the current game to continue without affecting what happens in other games.
That is, it’s the job of the officials to see that, to as great an extent as possible, the game is played in accordance with the rules as they have been written down.
Contrast this with how our judges operate, especially in appeals courts. They may decide, for example, that limiting the number of rounds you can carry in a magazine is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. From then on, that is the law, regardless of what the relevant constitutions — our government’s versions of the Rules of Baseball — have to say about it.
In a nutshell, the officials in baseball are there to enforce the rules as created by the rules committee, and to do that, they may issue rulings that do not become new rules. n contrast, the judges in our courts believe they are there to make up new rules on the fly — even when those are in blatant conflict with the rules as written down in constitutions and statutes.
In particular, with the part of the Constitution that clearly and unambiguously assigns all legislative power to Congress… and no legislative power to the courts themselves.
All of which is to say, our courts should learn from our sports.
The post Our Courts Should Learn From Our Sports appeared first on Granite Grok.
Every presidential season, I tell myself I should save all the mailers and see how much I end up with when the primary ends, but I never do it. This year would have been epic, but with a week to the Primary, things appear to have gotten out of hand.
Today, in my mailbox were 13 items. Ten of these were political flyers. They all had Nikki Haley’s name on them, but contrary to her ads, none were from Trump. Only one was negative. The other nine were pro-Haley. SFA Fund Inc. paid for seven of them. AFP was responsible for the other two. The Anti-Nikki flyer was from Never Back Down.
SFA Fund, Inc. is a pro-Haley (No Sh!t, really?) Hybrid PAC, according to the SEC. It’s based in Houston, Texas, and the Treasurer is Katie Reid. It has raised over 18.7 million and spent only 1.64M of that (on mailers, perhaps). If you’d like to see who the donors are, Open Secrets and a nice list here – There are 348 records if you plan to scroll through them.
AFP, we’ve said our peace about them, so no more comment there.
Then there’s the one negative mailer for this day’s mail. Never Back Down focused on the sale of land to China, which is always troubling and more so now than ever, but they are going to have to be better than that if they want DeSantis to have a chance at grabbing some anyone-but-Trump independents away from Haley. They might see about convincing a few more Republicans as well. DeSantis was never more popular here than when he’d never been here, but since then, his polling has declined.
I saw him in person a few times. He says the right things and has great ideas, but something is missing. He doesn’t strike me as a great orator, and maybe that’s why he’s having more of a challenge despite the ideas on which he is running. It’s just a thought. I expect the DeSantis fans will be after me for it, but what else might the matter be? Substance doesn’t win elections, and that’s not a new problem.
I wish him the best, but he’s not selling America, and the polling shows it. He underperformed in Iowa and seems likely to do much worse here, which won’t bode well for the states that follow. But I hope he stays in the race. We need a not-Haley candidate who is also a not-Trump candidate, and he is it. And no, this wasn’t meant to start as a critique of DeSantis, but I had much higher hopes for him on this stage, and perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
And yes, I still think this is Trump’s to lose, and I expect him to walk away with it in a landslide short of an actual guilty verdict in court that doesn’t go his way, and even that might not stop the nomination train.
And Haley, lots of flyers. Good Strategy. Younger, positive vision. And she might be the political Left’s favorite politician. Mary Rooke, whose work we often share, is reporting that Democrats in Iowa switched parties to vote for Haley in the Primary.
When you’re running to be the Republican Presidential nominee, the last people you expect to boost your ballot numbers are the ones actively hoping you and all your colleagues fail, but that’s precisely who propelled Haley to win the only county Trump lost in Monday’s Iowa primary race.
CBS News’ @tonydokoupil reports from a precinct in Johnston, Iowa, where some registered Democrats filled out forms to switch to the Republican Party to participate in the caucus: “They ran out of those forms.”
“This room was in favor of Nikki Haley.” pic.twitter.com/BapNjVGxdh
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 16, 2024
We had over 3000 Democrats switch to meddle in the Republican Primary in NH. It’s not enough to make a Yuge difference, but they must love all those mailers.
The post Trying Too Hard? – I Received Nine Pieces of Pro-Haley Mail in One Day appeared first on Granite Grok.
Fani Willis, the political hack prosecutor in Georgia persecuting … not a typo: persecuting, not prosecuting Trump and his supporters for the “crimes” of complaining that the rigged 2020 election was rigged, has been accused, essentially, of using her office to launder money to her boyfriend.
Her response: I should be held to a different standard because of my skin color.
And … she is. If this were a white male prosecutor who had hired his girlfriend to prosecute Hunter Biden, the Regime-Media, Big-Tech, etcetera would have already crucified him. Fani, on the other hand, gets to play the victim.
NEW: FANI WILLIS speaks after allegations of paying lover to prosecute Trump:
“You cannot expect black women to be perfect. We need to be allowed to stumble. We need grace. We are all sinners…”pic.twitter.com/YpP6tYH8zw
— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) January 14, 2024
Fani Willis wants you to believe having an affair with a man she gave $700,000 of taxpayer money too right after he divorced his wife so he could be her chief Trump prosecutor, is “doing the will of Jesus.” pic.twitter.com/uablaZeqmT
— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) January 15, 2024
DA Fani Willis breaks her silence on the scandalous affair and improper use of taxpayer funds:
"You cannot expect black women to be perfect and save the world"
"We need to be allowed to stumble"
pic.twitter.com/FqRz0CGFav
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 14, 2024
Fani Willis, who allegedly broke up her boyfriend’s marriage & paid him $650k to investigate Trump, spoke at church today in Atlanta & broke her silence. “You cannot expect black woman to be perfect and save the world,” she said. This case is OVER. pic.twitter.com/XGrIsOzruJ
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 15, 2024
The post Fani Says It’s Racist To Call Her Corrupt appeared first on Granite Grok.
Mary Maxwell: Hello ET, I have never interviewed an Extra-Terrestrial before. In fact, it’s difficult for me to believe that there are creatures out there who are somewhat like humans.
ET: Please feel free to express your doubts; that way, we might win over more readers.
Mary: To be honest, ET, I haven’t any desire to prove your real existence. I just want to tap your intellect.
ET: Shoot.
Mary: Let’s start by discussing overpopulation. What do you think is an ideal number of humans to be occupying the Earth at any given time?
ET: To answer that, I would need to know what kind of resources the Earth has. You humans eat food three times a day, right?
Mary: I eat three meals a day, but I live in a city where it has always been easy to get employment, and thus money to buy food. Elsewhere on the globe there are some very poor people who strive to get one meal a day.
ET: How much agricultural land does your planet have?
Mary: There is plenty of land space, but fertile soil is on the decline. A few decades ago, we switched from family farms to “Big Ag.” It looks to me that the big corporations lack planning for the future. They don’t take care of the soil.
ET: How do your three meals get from the farm to your dining table?
Mary: Long-distance transport is involved, usually by truck, so I am worried that a gasoline shortage may cause me to go hungry.
ET: What may cause the gasoline shortage?
Mary: I recall that in 1973, there were fights at the pumps, as gasoline was hard to get. This was explained by international decrees from OPEC — Oil and Petroleum Exporting Countries. Most of those were in the Middle East. Today, however, the decision to curtail supply might be made simply to cause starvation.
ET: Besides growing the food and delivering it to people, what else made you ask about overpopulation?
Mary: Well, I’d get ‘crowned’ for bringing it up — it’s politically incorrect. But here it is: I think we are not able to manage a huge population. We are not cut out for it. Humans need small or small-ish communities.
ET: Ah, I see I went off on a wrong track, responding to your query about an ideal population by treating it as resource-related.
Mary: No, wait. The resource problem will come back into it. I have in mind the way a large group breaks into two “enemies.” Probably, that happens because someone wants it to happen. Then, since we evolved for hostilities, our instinct takes over. You can see it all around you today. I think it is deliberate — it’s “policy.”
ET: Policy by whom? Wait. I can answer that myself in a general way: Policy by anyone who can gain from it.
Mary: Naturally, that is the correct answer. But now ask me what it is they will gain.
ET: I’m not stupid, Mary. I know that survival’s the thing. Those who are high enough to cause wars and to decide how the food will reach you are doing it so they can stay in the game.
Mary: Spot on, spot on. Most of my friends think the driving force is greed. But I feel sure the ones who have made it to a very high position know that the masses could turn on them. The poor buggers nowadays have to keep facing new challenges from below.
ET: I bet they face it with anything feasible to keep folks distressed. Disease, unemployment, and natural disasters.
We want to thank Mary Maxwell for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Mary: Yes, and war.
ET: Many wars are fought to keep the weapons makers in business. Or do you think that, too, is “policy.”
Mary: I think almost everything is policy. I also think the buggers are fairly unimaginative; if a policy has been successful for them in the past, they unashamedly use it again, despite a group of thinkers having outed them for it.
ET: I suppose you’d agree that when Group A is fighting Group B, the real instigator of the war is Mr C, who isn’t on either side.
Mary: Yes, but that’s hard for most people to see. I found out only in the 21st century that the so-called Cold War, which ran for most of my life, was fake insofar as the two Superpowers were in cahoots. It first came to my attention from Antony Sutton’s book “National Suicide.”
ET: It was a rather ingenious thing. The real bosses who ran both the US and the USSR were able to commit all sorts of violence in the Third World on the premise that “we, the good guys, had to prevent a takeover by Commies” or “by capitalists” if you were on the other side.
Mary: Perhaps even more ingenious is the ability of the “World Economic Forum” to infiltrate all parliaments. You will have heard Klaus Schwab say, on a microphone, that he is pleased to have put some ministers into Trudeau’s Cabinet.
ET: Probably the key to false wars In America is that Congress is so infiltrated, or the Reps are so intimidated by their handlers, that they refuse, outright, to follow the Constitution, which plainly says that only Congress, not a president, can declare war.
Mary: Oh yeah. I have filed two lawsuits against presidents for disobeying the rules, but the courts refuse to be the arbiter between the Legislature and the Executive.
ET: How is it not the Judiciary’s job to uphold the Constitution?
Mary: Beats me. Hmm. You could probably push me right over into saying that the judges work directly for the same bosses as do Congresspersons and the occupant of the White House.
ET: Shall we get back to the food issue?
Mary: Frankly, Sir, I get back to the food issue three times a day. Do you recall a few months ago that there was an “outbreak” of disasters at food-processing plants? The media managed to report each instance as unrelated to the others. We certainly did not see the government stepping in to thwart this trend. So, yes, there must be a plan in the works to put us all on a “diet.”
ET: Earlier, you hinted at a connection between the planned food shortage and our need to live in small-ish communities.
Mary: Think of it this way. In New Hampshire, where I live, the libertarians push the ideal of freedom. Who could disagree? To live life the way you choose is a great thing. Several generations back in New Hampshire, you’d be in a small community that could decide how to grow and sell food. But right now, in a city such as Concord, NH, or Manchester, people must get food from a supermarket. That entails kowtowing to BigAg, even if it’s not a visible kowtowing.
ET: So where is the ability of citizens to influence the government to change that?
Mary: It’s bigger than a breadbox, ET. Today, the folks shopping in a Manchester supermarket get their salary from a business that may also be hopelessly big. If I waved a magic wand and said, “Let those big companies collapse,” the Manchester folk might go foodless. That’s why I asked for your opinion about population size.
ET: So you don’t really mean “What Is Earth’s carrying capacity?” “How many people can be supported by Earth?”
Mary: Well, that too. We have been swept into modern life in, say, a mere four centuries since the Mayflower. And swept further into an economic whirlwind since the computer became widely used in the 1980s. As an individual, I enjoyed many benefits from that, including what I call “frequent-flyer syndrome. But I throw away plastic milk cartons that end up in the ocean, strangling fish. “My Type” is a heavy burden on the planet.
ET: Maybe you want me to calculate “What is the Earth’s carrying capacity for Your Type?”
Mary: Eeks! I try to avoid that morally distressing question. In 1976 I was studying environmentalism at Johns Hopkins and the teachers were excited about the September article by Nathan Keyfitz, in “The Scientific American.” I recall him noting that few people in India had washing machines, but if it came, that would be a big drawer of water (about 25 gallons per wash). I’m sure I hoped they wouldn’t get washing machines, despite it being a “must have” in my own dear life.
ET: India did then get washing machines. That also put paid to the occupation of the “dhobi’s” who did a sort of door-to-door laundry service, washing shirts in the river.
Mary: If you can focus on only one country, you could say, “The carrying capacity of India is such that a move towards washing machines should be curtailed.” Even the livelihood of the dhobis could be discussed by the community. But now we don’t have that sort of small economic community. In the US, it’s mostly Everyman for himself. This deprives us of a lot.
ET: It hasn’t deprived you of your frequent flyer hobby.
Mary: Pretty soon, I will lose such privileges. So, really, my question to you is: Can you help us come up with a plan for a more sensible life?
ET: Such a question! I suggest maybe you start by putting forth the issues you have named in a separate way (avoidance of war, provision of food, protection of the land), although caring citizens will soon see that they are connected.
Mary: Thank you. Yes, it would help to say: “Hey, what’s with the apparent plan to cause massive food shortages in the United States?” Or “Should our soldiers be rushing off to a war that Congress had no part in declaring?” But Congress stays away from such matters.
ET: This may be a good way to reveal the way Congress, the president, and judges, are not
loyal to the Constitution.
Mary: Definitely, that is a basic issue itself. In fact, if most members of government are not governing us per the parchment, then we don’t have a country. The existence of the US is the outcome of decisions made by the people precisely on the basis of that original agreement.
ET: This could be the year in which Congress largely changes hands. Steve Kirsch has laid out the “magnificent seven” members of Congress here.
Mary: Please, God, make it happen. Give peace a chance. And keep your humble servant’s three-times-a-day program in good repair. Gracias!
Editor’s Note: Mary Maxwell is on the New Hampshire Republican ballot for the 2024 presidential primary.
The post Night Cap: Presidential Candidate Asks an Extra-Terrestrial for Advice on War, Food Shortages, etc. appeared first on Granite Grok.
You live in a strange world when existing laws regarding obscenity and age-appropriate material are ineffectual at preventing adults from exposing children to explicit sexual content. But that’s where we are. If you want to show porn to kids, work in a public school.
That’s a great loophole, given that the majority of pedophiles try to find work in public schools. That’s where the children are, by law, they have to be there, and in some states, they make it as difficult as possible to let them out of that paddock. Homeschools, private schools, and charter schools are constantly under attack from a government more interested in how it has deformed education than anything that amounts to learning.
And ironically, not all porn is allowed in schools, but that is not book banning.
Into this circus atmosphere comes HB 1419, an act “relative to prohibiting obscene or harmful sexual materials in schools.” [Public Hearing: 01/18/2024 09:30 am LOB 205-207] It defines and outlines things that are otherwise common sense definitions reiterated to make the educator-class understand that showing kids cartoons of sex (or descriptions of same) is inappropriate, mentally disturbing, and should be illegal (generalized for brevity).
Call to Action! – Keep reading past the video to see how you can help right now!Again, why we have to do this is a question that can only be answered by groomers and pedos in the public schools and their political progressive defenders. The latter will be nearly universal in their opposition, which will make for good copy.
Democrats insist on exposing kids to sexually explicit content. Something that, outside the school room, gets you arrested. If you are unclear about the distinction, Allison Dyer of Nashua made time to frame that distinction in a recent video.
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");
Rumble("play", {"video":"v44kizz","div":"rumble_v44kizz"});
And fear not, groomers and pedos, and those with Munchhaeus by proxy, you can still order these ‘books,’ just like 50 Shades of Gray, online, allowing you unfettered access in seconds (digitally) or a day or two (for hard copy fans). Just don’t go thinking you can walk up to some kid at random and share it with them. As Allison points out, that might get you arrested.
Now!
Would you like to help advance this bill? You can without leaving the comfort of wherever you feel comfortable using your phone, laptop, or desktop PC. Heck, you can do it if you’re uncomfortable or pleasantly indifferent to your current state.
You don’t have to write or say anything, but we’d appreciate it if you would share this post or the link everywhere. A strong showing of support from NH Residents is essential to help move this legislation forward.
The Dems do this with a passion, so we must too. The Children need us to defend them. I hope you’ll help.
The post Call to Action: Relative To Prohibiting Obscene or Harmful Sexual Materials in Schools appeared first on Granite Grok.
A proposed constitutional amendment (CACR 12) has been put forward, which would amend Article 83 of the state constitution by replacing the word ‘cherish’ with the word ‘cherish.’
Say what?
The idea is that currently, the word means whatever it meant in 1784. And we need to replace it with whatever it means in 2024. That is, we would leave the word the same but change the meaning.
Which is what courts do all the time. (It says ‘fee’? Well, it means ‘tax’. It says ‘shall not’? Well, it means ‘may sometimes, with our approval.’ And so on.) So it’s clever. But too clever by half.
The amendment doesn’t specify a particular reference work for either definition. But if we look at the etymology of the word, we find that in the 14th century, it meant
hold as dear; treat with tenderness and affection
And in 2024, it means
to treat with affection and tenderness; hold dear
So unless the definition changed before 1784 and then changed back, the meaning has been constant, and there would be absolutely no significance to the proposed ‘change.’
Which means it fails even as an attempt at humor.
But it also completely misses the larger point, which is that we could change the word ‘cherish’ to a word that isn’t even a word, like ‘sorbelate’ or ‘presmonify’, and it wouldn’t really matter. In the clause in question,
it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools,
the crucial word is the word and, highlighted above.
That is, whatever ‘cherish’ — or ‘sorbelate’, or ‘presmonify’ — means, it must mean the same thing for both seminaries and public schools.
And it’s less important what you can do to cherish these institutions, than what you can’t do.
In particular, the state can’t fund, operate, or regulate a seminary. So it can’t do any of those things for public schools, either.
However, all three branches of government have been acting as if
A and B
means
B but not A
If we’re going to ‘fix’ Article 83 by either changing or affirming the definition of a word, then the word to focus on is and, rather than cherish.
And once we’ve straightened that out, we can look, in the same article,
Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it.
…at the word all — which, in any dictionary, would include the current government monopoly on schools.
The post Article 83 – It’s Not about ‘cherish’, It’s about ‘and’ appeared first on Granite Grok.
For an oldster like me, the current inner-city violence and destruction is only the next stage of an agenda that was underway even before my male-gender birth. Certain past highlights now stand out as former unnoticed signals yet have planted the formational seeds for today’s hateful attitudes and cultural cleansing.
One such event needs to be used as a comparative then versus now lesson. This was JFK’s memorable 1961 Inaugural Address in which he stated: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This preceded his equally famous, “And so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
WOW, sacrifice, God Bless America, and Mom’s apple pie flow throughout. However, this national pledge has grown some “maybes” and “what ifs,” which, in hindsight, were preparatory signs of today’s dysfunctional state.
Some who were elected have been impatient and have juiced up this agenda, yet it’s still the same dysfunctional cloud, regardless of its rate of speed. Past moments captured various officials, including Presidents, stating that the most solemn duty of the Oval Office is “having to send men off to war.” Given this acknowledgment, coupled with our Constitutional mandate for declaring war prior to that “most solemn duty,” past actions were either a general dysfunctional act(s) or were inherently criminal!
I fully accept that with today’s super sensitive atmosphere, neither term is welcomed, but being offended is not illegal and sometimes necessary. Since this topic involves many tens of thousands of lives, being offended is the least of our concerns, as it should be when the law is hanging in the balance.
This slice of American waywardness is but one example. It seems that policies are instituted until other priorities arise. This was perfectly clear when our support for a “friend” and our “oppose any foe” devotion faded from the pledge.
JFK’s “liberty” has now been recalculated to beachfront resorts on the China Sea, along with doing commerce with communist regimes. It just might be that the word “dysfunctional” is, in fact, too soft!
Concern should be directed to the government’s continuing dereliction of duty since it remains appropriate with today’s quagmires, all of which were fomented gradually as test cases at their intervening level of importance. Also, this issue of war, centering around the needless loss of American lives, ceased to be important when today’s volunteer military lessened both public interest and debate.
However, closer to home, this is not the case with today’s latest and highly publicized dysfunction. Supposedly, the dearest and most precious possession that brings us meaning with its joy and nurturing is the birth of our children. This is natural, desired, and, above all, a societal requirement. But not so today! Without getting into the dysfunctional corridors of selecting one’s gender, let’s just say again the word dysfunctional doesn’t do it justice.
I’ll wrap up this un-Godly nonsense by pointing to the current crop of dysfunctional parents who themselves have, in many cases, been similarly influenced in their youth through their own wayward rearing. As previously stated, for too long, all of this comes and goes quietly as “Joe Q Public” goes about his or her daily functions. This “let it be” attitude has become fundamental, one which, in all likelihood, was that communist singer’s intent. Nevertheless, it serves to weaken America’s resolve for all that is worth tackling.
Today, the tougher the chore, the less likely it’ll be addressed. Modern man and woman now choose to “let it be!” Our country wasn’t founded, nor did she gain freedom with easy tasks. Those Americans were proud, determined, and hardy. They made friends with the difficult since chopping wood determined warmth and dinner.
In contrast, our modern conveniences have brought an unhealthy degree of ease into our living. Such luxury often produces boredom, which in turn usually breeds either discontent, jealousy, immorality, hatred, or violence. What is missing is the inner peace and contentment derived from one’s pursuits of a purposeful, challenging, and fulfilling life, all while being guided by his or her faith.
The post Offensive but Accurate appeared first on Granite Grok.
Saturday afternoon at “the Aud” in Barre I attended the Republican Party of Vermont’s committee meeting. My reasons for attending were twofold, namely to get a sense of the party (I am a lifelong Independent) and listen for their pitch to me as a potential candidate for the Senate or House from my progressive stronghold in Windsor County.
I rode to the event with my long-time friend Joe Trottier, who is also looking to run as a Republican for the state house now that perpetual incumbent Kevin “Coach” Christie appears to be stepping down due to health concerns. Christie, a Democrat, is one of the most likable human beings you will ever meet, whether you agree with his politics or not. Joe can be described similarly, although his personality is a bit more quixotic compared to Christie’s blue-collar statesmanship.
Entering the conference room, the bustling sound of old friends and lively hopefuls filled the air. Big names of the Vermont GOP, aside from Phil Scott, all seemed to be in attendance. Paul Dame, Gerald Malloy, Scott Milne, and others who have spent their years grinding away at the political wheel worked the room deftly as any Vermont Republican might, politely and with a smile and savvy unique to Green Mountaineers. As a flatlander from the West Coast, I stood out like a sore thumb for my lack of a plaid shirt, Carhart pants, and sensible winter boots.
A brief conversation with Mr. Dame reassured me he at least understands his role as a political leader. Strong eye contact and sharp listening skills are accompanied by political insight into strategy and need. After an inviting invocation to the Lord asking for His blessing on the day’s event, followed by a hearty pledge of allegiance, Dame gave the VT GOP equivalent of a State of the Union address couched as a motivational speech. His overriding message? If we don’t establish some party unity, the progressives are going to continue to eat our lunch and tell us we have to pay for it. Neither the prayer nor his plea would win the day.
After a run through the respective county roll call, where individual names were confirmed for member representatives to vote on the meeting’s issues, the procedure made it alphabetically all the way to the last county, mine, Windsor – when the fireworks began. Upon calling the name John McGovern as chair of Windsor County, an “objection” was raised, followed by a series of back-and-forth “points of order” and “appeals” until a man from Windsor County stood up and read a letter describing the nature of the objection.
Trying hard to follow the technical language that invoked “Robert’s rules” and other party statutes, it was clear the Windsor Committee was in disarray. It seemed the committee had swollen thanks to new membership, and many of them had grown disenchanted with Mr. McGovern for what they described as “dereliction of duty.” It was implied the committee’s attempt to force McGovern to resign was wrongfully nullified thanks in part to both McGovern’s unwillingness to recognize their authority and the state GOP inconveniently scheduling a meeting for the same day as theirs. The next twenty or so minutes saw “point of order” after “point of order” and “appeal” after “appeal” until McGovern was asked to explain his side in the matter. An older man with a gaunt and wizened Ivy League presentation began his defense by reminiscing his grandfather’s wisdom “never to get into a pissing contest with a skunk.” Amidst groans and protests, he attempted to backtrack the comment, but the insult had been made.
A lengthy explanation of the vote to recognize McGovern as the chair and rightful voter passed when a man at the back of the room launched into an expletive-laced complaint where he slammed a chair into the wooden floor calling “b***s**t,” Dame “a Democrat,” and referred to “the uniparty” as the Windsor clan stood up and began to walk out. To Dame’s credit, I thought he handled the entire ordeal with dignity and fairness.
Outside, I overheard McGovern explain to another attendee that he didn’t want Trump on the ballot and to oppose Trump is “pro-Republican.” This struck me as odd given Trump’s overwhelming popularity with the national party, and when I asked him about it, McGovern became defensive and shortly used terms like “crazy” to dismiss the case for Trump or his supporters. My next question to him was, “Do you think Joe Biden won the 2020 election?” to which he asserted he absolutely did. I asked if he’d seen D’nesh D’souza’s “2,000 Mules”, and he told me he went to Dartmouth with D’nesh, hadn’t seen the film, and dismissed both as “crazy.”
Moments later, another man from the meeting came out to McGovern’s case, which shortly turned into his describing a friend who he trusts with his life but is “nuts” for believing 9/11 was an inside job before demonizing Alex Jones’ involvement with Sandy Hook. Neither point had anything to do with Trump or the coming election. It was an emotional appeal, given he’d cried the day of the shooting and took the time to carve out the names of the children in a memorial he would personally take to Newtown, CT.
Surely, the man’s gesture was sincere, but it doesn’t warrant labeling those who question either story as “crazy.” There is enough public evidence of our government being weaponized against its citizens and media systematically lying about it to at least give credence to those who question the popular stories. In fact, that’s what the constitution these conservatives claim to want to conserve is built upon – the necessity of protecting dissenting voices. I can only imagine how many Brits and crown sympathizers referred to the revolutionaries as “crazy” to go up against the established colonial power.
Dismissing others as “crazy” and “nuts” has become the easiest way to avoid in-depth political conversations. No appeal to reason or additional facts and evidence can be mounted to take the dialogue further with people who use diagnostic terms to degrade or belittle people with differing opinions. What results is the Hatfield’s vs. McCoy’s effect which exists already between Republicans and Democrats, though now appears to be bifurcating the Republican party – never Trumpers vs. MAGA.
I went outside to ask the Windsor delegate for more clarification, and they refused on the grounds they speak as a group, so I shared my contact info in hopes I would have the chance to understand the deeper nature of the rift.
As an outsider looking into potentially supporting the Vermont GOP as a viable candidate, I was left disappointed at their seeming inability to set aside what are ultimately petty differences when faced with the real political threat – the supermajority in Montpelier and the establishment in D.C. These are the questions I hope they’ll consider:
How can you expect to win if you can’t even finish a simple meeting without devolving into chaos?
If Trump won in 2016 and received a record 12 million more votes in 2020, why would you not back such a strong candidate?
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the lowest approval ratings in history. Biden is demonstrably mentally unfit, and Harris isn’t taken seriously as a candidate by her own party. Can you not see the Democrats have the weakest candidates in their history, yet you’re letting them dictate to you about likely the strongest you’ve had in Trump?
Is it possible you have adopted the very talking points given by a media that ranks as the second least trusted institution in the country, behind only Congress (who championed the “insurrection” narrative)?
If more than one million Democrats left the party to become Republicans following the 2020 election, what does that tell you?
If over half the country thinks the election was stolen, including some 30 percent of Democrats, why would you oppose the most popular Republican candidate?
From my vantage point, the Republican Party has never been in a better position to take back ground in the state of Vermont. From the unpopularity of DEI and the climate agenda, the failing education system, the attack on families, parents, and gender, the rising cost of gas and housing, and the soaring crime rate, winning back seats in Congress should be easier than getting an extra mail-in ballot.
The problem doesn’t appear to be a lack of unity but a lack of courage to call out the actually crazy party – the one that calls mothers “birthing persons,” says women can have penises while not being able to define a woman, drag-queens should read to children, children should have sex organs removed, we should ban gas-stoves yet tolerate genocidal language regarding Jews, the people who ended slavery are inherently racist, ad nauseum – are the same ones saying Trump is the biggest threat to America – and you agree with them?
What say you grand ol’ party?
The Lord from whom you sought guidance says this:
If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5:15)
The post VT GOP – Call Me Crazy but…. appeared first on Granite Grok.
With nearly 36,000 square miles, you can put the other five New England states inside Maine’s borders. Madawaska is a little town located at the top of Aroostook County and is the northernmost town in New England. It is home to around 3,800 residents.
If those residents wanted to take the 400-mile ride to Kittery, the southernmost town in Maine, in their snappy Tesla sedan, they would have to add about 6 hours of charge time to the 6 hours of drive time. An EV would double the time of the trip, and that is IF they could find a charging station. Maine has only 216 high-speed charging stations but over 1,200 gas stations. Using a 6-pump average per station makes 7,200 gas pumps versus 216 charging stations.
Does that sound like the Maine infrastructure is ready for an EV Mandate? I think not. But that is precisely what the Democrat leadership is trying to ram down Mainer’s throat. By the way, Maine is also a frigid state in Winter, and EV batteries lose a tremendous amount of energy running the heaters to keep the batteries warm and viable. A long stretch of RTE 95 is the last place you want to spend a cold winter night in a dead EV, but it will happen.
The Maine Board of Environmental Protection had been scheduled to vote on December 21 on the Advanced Clean Cars II Program, which initially proposed to require 43% of new vehicles sold in Maine to be zero emission by the 2027 model year, increasing to 82% by 2032. The December 18 storm closed the capitol and delayed the vote. A slight change has been made, and the 2028 Model year has replaced the 2027.
They can play with dates and percentages. But I still question the constitutionality of the government mandating the type of car we can own or which appliances we can choose. There seems to be a disregard for the Constitution at the Federal and State levels. Where did the government get this power or liberty, whether it is the type of car or leaf blower, replacing our gas with an electric stove, or controlling our preference for air conditioners? What about our liberty?
According to independent surveys, only 6% of Americans prefer EVs, a far cry from a majority. Hertz announced this week they are selling off 20,000 EVs and restocking with gas-powered vehicles. Hertz customers do not want EVs because of the limitations on where to travel and the extra travel time with frequent charging. The company is losing millions because it jumped on the government EV train.
America was built on the free market and free means of choice, not mandates. There are over 280 million cars in America that the Biden Administration is rendering worthless. Not only will our cars be of no value when forced to replace them with an EV, but where will we scrap nearly 300 million personal vehicles, and when will the government turn its attention to commercial and agricultural? It is unsurprising, but Biden did not think this whole scenario through. He also didn’t get the advice of the car industry or, more importantly, the drivers. Biden, Buttigieg, Kerry, and Granholm know better than we do. The problem is they consistently prove themselves wrong. This case is just another, and Maine is on the wrong side of right or wrong, too.
The post Bear Pond Conservative Chronicles: Why Do Democrats Think Maine Is Ready For EVs appeared first on Granite Grok.