I was just at a meeting of the Croydon school board, and several times, when the question of how the students are doing came up, there was a rush — one might say a stampede — to offer excuses as to why it’s simply not possible to say in any objective way whether students are doing well enough to justify what we’re spending on them.

(Which is, it’s worth reminding ourselves often, about the cost of a house over the course of a K-12 education.)

Apparently, we can’t use anything like test scores, because those don’t tell the whole story.

The consensus among parents — who normally make up the bulk of the audience, showing up to protect their tax-subsidized 95% discount on day care — seems to be that we should just let the superintendent worry about it.

And if the superintendent says things are okay — because, for example, while a kid isn’t doing so well academically, he’s ‘excelling in extra-curricular activities’ —  we should take his word for it.

(If things seem too bleak, we can always just label the kid as ‘special needs’, in which case, all metrics become irrelevant, so even if the kid exhibits a ‘negative growth rate’ — yes, that’s an official term — then that’s still growth, so there’s nothing to worry about.)

Also, the consensus among parents seems to be that if they are happy, then it doesn’t really matter whether the people subsidizing them are happy.

From the taxpayer’s perspective, all of this is reminiscent of former basketball coach Bobby Knight’s advice that ‘if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it’.

But even if tests don’t tell the whole story, we don’t need the whole story.  What we need to know is whether kids are performing as expected for their grade levels, or even that they’re making reasonable progress compared to how they were doing last year.  And we really just need to know that for foundational skills like reading and mathematics.

But if these are things that we can’t test, then what the hell are we even doing?  How can we justify spending this much money on something without knowing how to tell whether or not we’re actually getting it?

I think we’ve reached this point because we have a vocabulary problem.  The parents are arguing that it’s difficult — even impossible — to say whether a kid is educated.  And there may be some basis for that, in that if you ask ten people what it means to be educated, you’ll get at least a dozen different answers.¹

But whatever else you can do, if you can’t

read a proposed statute or regulation and understand what behavior it’s supposed to punish or reward (and whether that’s consistent with the powers delegated to government under our written constitutions); or

look at a report written by a pharmaceutical company and re-issued by the CDC and tell whether the statistical methods being used are reasonable; or

tell the difference between an ad hominem attack and a substantive reply in a policy debate; and so on,

then you are uneducated.  And these are things we can demonstrate with tests.

As Article 83 of our state constitution reminds us, if you are uneducated, you are a danger to the preservation of a free government.

Which, by the way, is the answer to the question ‘Why is this guy paying to educate that guy’s kids?’

It’s not charity.  It’s not for the benefit of the parents (so they can have somewhere to park their kids while they make a living).  It’s not for the benefit of the kids (so they can have ‘bright futures’ or ‘get high-paying jobs’).  It’s not for the benefit of employers (so they can have a ‘reliable workforce’).  It’s for the protection of the rights of the people whose property is being appropriated in order to pay for it.

It’s right there in Part 1, Article 3 of the state constitution.  You can look it up.

And when we forget that, we end up with… well, what we have now.

 

¹  The state supreme court, in Claremont, gave its own definition:  you have an adequate education if you have the knowledge and learning necessary to participate intelligently in the American political, economic, and social systems of a free government.

Which means that, at the very least, taxpayers should ask of everything that they’re paying for:  For participation in which of these systems is it necessary to be able to weld, or hit a fastball, or play the tuba, or sew an apron, or speak French, and so on?

But I can tell you from experience that if you merely quote the court’s definition, you’ll be told that such an idea is ‘crazy’, that it is ‘too narrow a view of public education’, that it is a ‘detriment to our society’, and so on.

Apparently the court knows what it’s doing when it says that the state should spend more money; but not when it says what the state should get in return for that spending.

The post What We Talk about When We Talk about Student Achievement appeared first on Granite Grok.

As Myocarditis has achieved escape velocity from the media messaging meant to restrain it, vaxxine extremists have tried to reframe the problem. Healthy adults and children were getting these heart conditions as a result of having had COVID-19.

Related: Moderna Has a New mRNA Vaxx (To Help with the Heart Problems Created by Their Last mRNA Vaxx?)

That’s not an unreasonable reasonable assumption. It makes more sense than nearly anything else they have peddled. We were told that many people had COVID, so if a segment of those individuals – even in the millions – came down with something else, that could be the answer. And maybe there’s another vaccine* for that.

I think we can agree Big Pharma would be happy to concoct it. Last October, we reported on a “treatment” for heart problems from Moderna. So yeah, it’s almost as if they knew. But they did know and kept that risk hidden or at least low-key, and now the rise in cases alongside other heart-related injuries has labeled SARS-CoV2 the demon causing these ills.

But something else happened last Autumn. Doctors and researchers released the results of a massive project titled “The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study.” As the title suggests, they were looking to see if the rise in these heart-related issues was as common among the unvaccinated.

As it turns out, it’s not.

Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.

 

So Covid vaccines may cause myocarditis, but Covid itself causes myocarditis too, right? WRONG!

A large-scale Israeli study of 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection showed that “Covid infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis.” pic.twitter.com/F2yCIFkHEW

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) November 8, 2022

 

If this is news to you, make it a part of your scientific response to the vaccine extremists who need to convince people on social media that COVID is causing myocarditis and pericarditis, heart attacks, and even people dropping dead “suddenly.”

As with most everything else, it was the response to COVID that caused it.

 

The Science Says COVID Isn’t Causing Myocraditis The Vaccines Are Doing That

The post The Science Says COVID Isn’t Causing Myocraditis The Vaccines* Are Doing That appeared first on Granite Grok.

Kids are “airdropping” porn to other students.  Parents can change the settings on iPhones/iPods so that only people in their contacts can airdrop. Or turn it off altogether.  Even tech-savvy parents may not have thought about this.

They can certainly send photos via email/text messages too, but this is one way to address the airdrop feature.

The post WARNING PARENTS: Kids Air-dropping Porn to Other Children appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s been a while, but it’s time to start in on some quick thoughts again. Today, it’s about HB101 – the bill submitted by NH State Rep (and Grokster) Mike Moffet and voting in Party Primaries.

Mike didn’t mention it at all but *I* remember a certain political stunt that was played during a Democrat Primary that, due to a nationwide radio talk show host, went viral and did EXACTLY what Mike wants to make irrelevant.

Plus, Ray Buckley gets a well deserved shot.

 

BTW, we humbly ask that you would subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/granitegrok. It costs you nothing but we’re just 49 subscribers away from YouTube giving us money every time someone watches a video we put up. Their minimum is 1,000 subscribers and we’re also close for the other metric which is hours watched per month.  So, if you would, please, click on the link and then click on the SUBSCRIBE button on the right hand side.

Thanks!

The post Skip’s Sauntering Snippets #19 – HB101, NH State Rep Mike Moffet, Primaries, and Operation Chaos appeared first on Granite Grok.

Yep, Treehugger time again. This time, Lloyd asks the “hoisted on his own architecture petard” question (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Can Architects Survive in a World Where We Have to Build Less?

The key to green building is to use less stuff. In a recent post on the subject, I quoted engineer Scott Brookes’ answer when asked how to promote using less stuff and still make a living: “By supporting a reduction in development, we reinforce the value of our consultant’s thinking time, innovation, and design creativity.”

But using less stuff often means making less money, and engineer Will Arnold’s hierarchy of net zero design has serious implications for the architectural and design communities. How do you make a living when your best advice is to build nothing, and your livelihood depends on clients who build something? It’s a fundamental contradiction of a capitalist system based on constant growth, with many asking questions and discussing degrowth without many good answers.

I call it “working yourself out of a profession” as he can’t seem to balance his own calls for “build less”/degrowth and “how do I make a living??”. The “degrowth” movement is all about doing with far less and (as the World Economic Forum puts it), being happy about it. Lloyd and other THers are ALL about living with less to the point of not just doing it voluntarily (which I keep telling them is commendable for THEM) but keep kvetching that we ALL should do the same. Of course, they won’t answer my demands of “Other than using Government Force, how are you going to do that?”.  THAT, my friends, is letting the cat out of the bag.

And it’s a problem they are making from two opposing spectrum points – architects who HAVE to build stuff to eat and architects who prize “sustainability” such that their clients go tell them to pound sand.  Do, or not do – and the Lloyds are starting to realize that for their industry, it’s a short circuit for an endpoint (“crash and burn”). If your business is to create things, then you cannot NOT make things. Simple, from my standpoint. Go learn to code (snicker).

Or at least for a Jennifer Crawford out of Australia. The post talks about her story and ends up with:

She tells Treehugger: “I just want a good sustainable business that pays the bills. I’m not looking to build an empire.” Words to live by.

Which, necessarily, means building stuff.  And if it is SMALL stuff, you need to be doing a lot of small stuff – and realize there is no economy of scale. And in building little, so is your career and money-making opportunities. I thought that was simple to understand: do, or not do. Pick one because you can’t have both unless you want to lie to yourself and others.

I left this comment that was NOT well received (three downvotes) – emphasis now but not when I wrote it:

A perfect example of the unintended consequences of the exalted no-growth / build nothing economy.

If a limit to the economy is foisted upon us all, what will all of those “extra” people do to earn their livings? Or will everyone be forced to earn less and less until it is no longer enough – or worth doing?

Be careful for what you wish for – and we may ALL be on the cusp of what the faculty lounge / Command economy mavens have theorized for decades – without understanding (or caring) what will happen in the steps from “heah” to that “theah” end stage of Utopia.

EVs were looked at as “The Answer” for gas powered vehicles for everyone. And as the steps start coming into view, they are getting more and more expensive, can’t do the job they were intended to do (can”t haul a load worth crap, range goes down 50% in the cold (like here in the US – New Hampshire is doing 10 degrees F and halving the range), and the cost of replacing battery packs are 3-5 times the cost of a new crate engine).

And as the world “marches to renewables”, coal production and use is at an all time high. Yet, Switzerland just told its citizens to NOT charge those EVs now just like CA did during the summer?

Yeah, life is gonna be wonderful under this new “Energy Justice” regime where “Justice” isn’t about Justice but merely making everyone no better than anyone else in the end…unless it is about making them equally miserable.

Ho, Ho, Ho! if you’re one of the nomenklatura!

When you are mandated to live with less, there will be less to do. These Eco-Socialist Commies have a single problem – they have no idea how economics really work. Oh sure, they can spew what they want and do the woulda/coulda/shoulda two-step, but in the end, they can’t lay out a cogent path to their “utopia”. They start “here”, point to “there”, and everything in the middle is a lot of arm/handwaving, smoke billowing out between their ears if you challenge them, but can’t logically go from point A to B to C and so forth. They NEVER look around and do the “what if” at each and every waypoint. They can’t – they never learned that everything is a tradeoff…

…and they aren’t willing to do any trading until they get to their Clean Energy Dystopia. They don’t CARE about what their ideas can and will do to others. THey don’t CARE what the hardships will be on Society – they only want to impose their will onto others.

Thus, I continue to be their very own PIA.

The post Quick Thought – What’s the Ramifications of Building Less/Owning Less? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Dark clouds are gathering over the White House and Joe Biden’s past is catching up with him. Son Hunter will be the major contributor to the old fools’ troubles. Seems that laptop opened more than one can of worms. Hunter’s tax records show that he paid dad $50,000 a  year for rent on one of his father’s homes. Funny thing is that Joe’s tax records do not show any such income. Some might suspect tax evasion or tax fraud. Now it seems that Joe’s posted (transparency) tax records have suddenly been deleted from the net – how curious?

About all those documents/records with Top Secret labeled on them from the Obama administration found in Joe’s possessio. To which his response is “where did they come from?” or something along those lines. Well, no Vice Presidents do not have the authority to declassify documents like a President (i.e.,  Donald Trump) did.  Transparency be damned! Joe has decades of known underhanded activities and lies – now the really dirty secrets are coming out and Democrats are rushing to the dikes to put fingers into the leaks. My thinking is they will not have enough fingers after giving all their middle fingers to everyone in America for all these years.

Add to that cloud bank over DC, the current mayor of NYC has just given, you know who, a swift kick in the pants. Mayor Eric Adams is down in El Paso. Yup the one on the Texas Mexico border. Mayor Adams said “NYC has no more room for illegals” adding the Federal Government has to do it’s job and fix this problem. Adams is planning to unite city mayors all across America to force Washington to actually follow the law, do their job, as it were.

Somebody should have thought of that years ago don’t you think?

Now when some liberal praises the great job Biden is doing, all you have to do is laugh.

The post Poor old Joe appeared first on Granite Grok.

GREETINGS….CITIZENS OF THE FALLEN REPUBLIC OF SUNUNU.

This is BUZZ BUZBY of radio station WTF interviewing renowned author and eugenics philosopher, and hopefully-and let’s keep our fingers crossed on this one-future president of the “I hate every kid I ever met” society…MARGARET SANGER.

BUZZ: “Greetings Margaret! Thank you for this interview. As one of the leading advocates for PLANNED PARENTHOOD- or are you the founder? – you must be horribly upset over the recent Supreme court decision of Dobbs v Jackson, where the Court overturned Roe v Wade. I mean, how could they do that to you – outlaw abortion? I know you must be in mourning and that I should probably let you alone to grieve, but I need the story, and I really don’t care about anyone’s feelings so tell me -What are your thoughts now that you took it in the gut?”

SANGER:” Well, my first thought is that you are a complete, illiterate moron. My name is Margaret Singer- like I told you at least five times. I am an avid supporter of Margaret Sanger, but she is dead, and I am not her. My second thought is that you are a complete, illiterate moron because you never read the decision, and you obviously don’t know what it says.”

BUZZ: “UH? Read the decision? The actual decision? Why would I do that? It’s all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo lawyer talk. Naw, I just watched the pro-lifers celebrate, and the pro-abortion folks cry and gnash their teeth. I just figured that from the way they were acting, it was good for the pro-lifers and really bad for you folks. Am I wrong?”

SANGER:” Wrong? Yea, dead wrong! If I had written the opinion myself, I could not have done a better job. The Supreme Court gave me and all my abortion buddies a Christmas gift, a birthday gift, and the winning lottery ticket all in one decision. They not only upheld abortion laws. They extended authorized them to the extremes of any true abortionists’ dreams of- NO LIMITS ABORTION. Abortion right up until the moment of birth. Maybe even beyond. And if the little guy survives the abortion, they gave us the go-ahead to finish the abortion. I am not crying. It’s me that is celebrating.”

BUZZ: “Are you sure about this? I mean, I saw all those pro-lifers smiling and dancing. They were even taunting the abortion workers. They think they won. Shouldn’t we tell them they lost??”

SANGER: “Why? Let them keep their delusions. As long as they don’t read the decision, they will just go about their business and leave us alone while we spring into action. We can blindside them with their own fantasy. And when they finally do wake up–oh my goodness-the laugh I am going to get from the look on their faces…priceless. “

BUZZ: Ok, but I am here to get the full story. I don’t want to wait or to read the decision. Can you at least tell me why you feel you won? What’s in that opinion that makes you feel so good?”

SANGER: “Well…I don’t know…can you keep it to yourself…no, i bet you can’t. No, never mind. None of those pro-lifers will read your column because no one does. …So here goes…May I have a drum roll….please?!?! DRED SCOTT.”

BUZZ: “Huh? What? Who the hell is Dred Scott? Should I interview him? Will he know what is in the Dobbs case?”

SANGER:” No. You fool. In 1857, some three years before the start of the American civil war, the big fight was on slavery. There was a big problem brewing because the south wanted slavery, and the north – not so much. The south claimed that slaves were not human, but some kind of subhuman. More like a horse, a piece of property. The north – at least some of them – claimed that the slaves were, in fact human beings and therefore entitled to constitutional- rights, including freedom.

That was the issue in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford, which was decided by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Tanney-who many felt was against slavery…boy did he fool them -wrote the opinion. In his words, Dred Scott was a “NEGRO SLAVE OF AFRICAN DESCENT’. Scott claimed that his owner had taken him from a slave state to a free state to live. Since the free state did not allow slavery, he argued that he should be set free, and his owner should not be allowed to practice slavery in a free state. The Supreme court rejected his argument and stated that the basis for their ruling was simple: they read the constitution from stem to stern, and nowhere did it say that “NEGRO SLAVES OF AFRICAN DESCENT” were “persons” under the constitution. Justice Tanney ruled that Mr. Scott was simply not a” person”. He was not even a human being. He was more like a piece of property, and his owner could do with him as he pleased-even take him to live in a free state since he could easily take a horse to live in a free state and not lose ownership.

Fast forward to the 1970s and the ROE V WADE DECISION. The Supreme Court ruled that an unborn child is really the same as DRED SCOTT. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion. He said that he read the Constitution from stem to stern and no place did it say that a fetus was a person. And since the unborn child was not a person, it had no rights under the constitution. Instead, it was a DRED SCOTT- more like a horse, a piece of property that the owner could treat in whatever way a slave owner wanted to treat it. Here is what this church-going Catholic man said:

“Several of the litigants argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and the meaning of the 14th amendment…If this suggestion of personhood is established (ROE’S) case of course, collapses, for the fetus’s right to life would be guaranteed…The Constitution does not define “person”…(However, we decide that) the use of the word…applies only postnatally.”

Fast forward to Dobbs-2022. Justice Alito, speaking for the majority of the court, could easily have said that the unborn child-fetus was a “person,” and then we would have lost. He did not do that. He skirted the issue and said it’s up to the states to make that decision. In avoiding the issue, he gave us all that we wanted. More. The right to abortion goes forward. AND JUST SO YOU WILL KNOW–THE RIGHT TO ABORTION DOES NOT EXIST IF THE UNBORN CHILD IS A “PERSON”. We have always known abortion requires the child to be DRED SCOTT. The fetus is DRED SCOTT- A HORSE, NOT A HUMAN. AND LIKE THE SOUTH COULD DO WHATEVER IT WANTED WITH ITS SLAVES, SO TO WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT WITH OUR DRED SCOTTS.”

BUZZ: “WOW! WHAT A GREAT VICTORY FOR YOU. You must be really proud. You will go down in history for taking the lives of millions of those unborn kids just by resurrecting the pivotal case that led to the civil war.”

SANGER:” Proud? You betcha. But not just because of the DRED SCOTT stuff. There is something that is really remarkable that I have not even mentioned yet. It may be more important than even the “YOUR NOT HUMAN” RULING.”

BUZZ: “Really? Well, ok. But we are running out of time, and I really need to get over and tell the pro-lifers what you are saying and get their reaction. Briefly, what is more, remarkable than saying a kid is subhuman?”

SANGER: “Wait until you hear this. You won’t believe it. I know I had a hard time with it: The Supreme Court did what it never does-ever. It told my people how to go about creating and enforcing the most far-reaching abortion laws we could ever dream of.”

BUZZ:” You mean they gave you a road map to your very own “promised land.”

SANGER:” THEY SURE AS HECK DID. Let me enlighten you: Every first-year law student who has completed the basic course in Constitutional law can tell you the various rules that the Supreme Court lives by. One of the most basic rules is the legal standard to apply when considering whether a law impinges on a Constitutional right. If the law in question is seeking to impinge on a “fundamental right” like one of the bills of rights (freedom of religion or speech, etc.), then the government has a very high burden to justify the law. The Court says it will subject the law in question to very “Strict Scrutiny ” and will hold it to be unconstitutional unless the state has a “Compelling state interest” in enforcing the law.

If, however, the right in question is not a “fundamental” right, the court applies a very different and much more lax standard: the Court will uphold the law so long as the state has “any rational basis.” The Supreme Court held that a state may pass any law it wants allowing abortion -even without limits, even up to the moment of birth or perhaps beyond–and the Supreme Court will review the law under the more lax standard. So long as there is any rational state basis for the abortion law, it will be upheld. They even told us then what would be a rational state interest. The Court said:

“A law regulating abortion …is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. It must be sustained if there is any rational basis on which the legislature could have thought it would serve legitimate state interests…these legitimate state interests include…protection of the maternal health and safety.”

BUZZ: Wow. Let me get this straight now: All the abortion folks need to do is go to one of the states they control-like, New York or Vermont and pass any abortion law they want–no matter how extensive or vile–and the Supreme Court has already told them exactly what to say to win out. Why the hell would the pro-lifers think they won? My god, Margaret, you can truly treat the little boogers like a horse, and get away with it. Maybe even get a medal and a big contract for all those baby body parts you can harvest.

SANGER: MORE LIKE THE DRED SCOTT HORSE. I got to go now. Hope I helped you understand what happened and why we won. Wait-I forgot. I guess I could stay a little longer if you want me to sing a song I wrote to celebrate our win: I call it “EUGENICS FOREVER,” and it goes to the beat of JINGLE BELLS. Or if that is not to your liking, I got another one. It’s called “MY NAME IS DRED; I CAN’T DIE CAUSE I AM ALREADY DEAD.”

BUZZ: NAW. PASS ON THOSE. But… how about YOU ARE MY SUNSHINE”

NEWS FLASH-UPDATE: VERMONT IMPOSES NO LIMIT ABORTION ON DEMAND. TELLS TWITTER TO SUPPRESS ANY BABIES BORN ALIVE AFTER BOTCHED ABORTIONS.

The post An “Interview” with Margaret Sanger on Dobbs v Jackson (Abortion) … appeared first on Granite Grok.

And I’m betting that bringing up US Rep Hank Johnson’s utterance that putting all the US Military on one end of Guam would make it tip over would be hate speech as well?  And don’t get me started on “The Rev. Al” and his race-baiting and all sorts of other well-covered annoyances.

And Jackson Lee wants me convicted because “Free Speech”, in her eyes, doesn’t apply to White people when talking about people Not Of Pallor? Emphasis mine:

Last week, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a bill that was so absurd it had people asking if it was real. As evidenced by its page on congress.gov, and also given the kind of member that Jackson Lee is, it is in fact real.

The bill in question, H.R. 61, also known as the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023,” seeks to “amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.” It would criminalize the “conspiracy to commit white supremacy,” that is directed against non-white people.

This includes “inspir[ing]” or influencing people to commit such a crime based on having “published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on “replacement theory”, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group.” Material published on social media platforms is mentioned as well.

And as always, it is ONLY one sided. As the post points out, what happens when other Black People call SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?  Isn’t that within the bounds of Jackson Lee’s bill?  Oh wait – it’s only directed at White People.

Look, she is Stupid and I could fill up this blog just writing about what she has said and done to prove the point.  I keep wondering how she keeps getting re-elected by spouting this kind of nonsense but I guess “playing to her crowd” makes it happen.

One would think that being elected to the third highest elected office in America just might have her realize and think about her oath of office and, perhaps, what that might mean and entail, but sadly, no. People of her political heft don’t take into account what is Constitutional – just some “gauzy” idea of what they can get away with. The post has a list of her tweets that try to defend her thinking (such as it is) – it proves my point.

Being an engineer has inculcated a sense of either something works or it doesn’t. When I start to think of something, I always first ask “is this lawful? Is it right?” and use that as “my smell test” (as in “does it pass…?”). Other people would say “applying a filter before going off half-cocked”.

Her?  Not so much. At all.

And her voters keep sending her back in – one reason why we can’t have nice things (like a government that actually works).

 

(H/T: Townhall)

The post OK, So US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is BARELY Smarter Than Her Voters. Otherwise, She’s Right There with Rocks. Is that Enough to Convict Me of “Hate Speech Towards Minorities”? appeared first on Granite Grok.

A few weeks ago, we put out a call for volunteers to help us track the Executive Council. The Executive Council meets every other week to approve expenditures and receipts, approve appointments, and oversee the administration of the state.

Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication.

For more details about the functions of the Executive Council, see our “New Hampshire Government Crash Course” video.

For the meeting upcoming on January 18th, here are the following expenditures they will approve related to Covid.

 

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Division of Long Term Supports and Services A. Authorize to enter into a sole source amendment to an existing Cooperative Agreement with University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH (originally approved by G&C on 10/27/21, Item #24), to continue to support Aging and Disability Resource Centers and NHCarePath system partners with addressing barriers to access and education relative to COVID-19 vaccinations for individuals engaged in the No Wrong Door System, by exercising a contract renewal option by extending the completion date from June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024, with no change to the price limitation of $602,631.
• Authorize on behalf of the Department of Administrative Services to make a sole source purchase of laboratory reagents and supplies for COVID-19 testing from Gen-Probe Sales and Services, Inc., San Diego, CA, in the amount of $1,204,000.
• Authorize to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the New Hampshire Judicial Branch in the amount of $6,392,715 to upgrade courthouse security, increase remote resource access, and improve access to civil legal resources for populations adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Authorize to enter into an agreement with Cheshire County Nursing Home, Keene, NH, in the amount of $920,768 in American Rescue Plan Act State Fiscal Recovery Funds as part of the County Nursing Home Infrastructure Program, which provides funds for capital investments to help mitigate and prevent the spread of future COVID-19 outbreaks in county nursing facilities, ensure facilities are safe for residents and their families, and help fund facility improvements.
• Authorize to enter into a subgrant with the Town of Lancaster, in an amount not to exceed $10,152, from the American Rescue Plan Act, to support municipalities and state agencies with activities related to relaxed COVID-19 restrictions.

 

That is a grand total of $9,130,266 spent on nonsensical Covid measures in only one of two monthly Executive Council meetings in January.

Action Item:
Email your Executive Council member today and tell them to stop the outrageous spending spree.
Joseph.D.Kenney@nh.gov
Cinde.Warmington@nh.gov
Janet.L.Stevens@nh.gov
Ted.Gatsas@nh.gov
David.K.Wheeler@nh.gov

Not sure who your Executive Council member is? Check here.

Towards Liberty,

 

Melissa Blasek is the Executive Director of RebuildNH

The post Executive Council, Bi-monthly, Covid Spending Spree Report appeared first on Granite Grok.

Nothing about Joe Biden is genuine. His life is a fantasy concocted over cocktails and peddled by whomever he can get to repeat it. And I’m not just speaking to his MLK day remarks, in which he invented a steaming pile of nonsense.

The story about how he met his second wife, Jill, is – according to the guy who was married to her before Joe – a complete fabrication.

 

 

The post Quick Shot: More Lyin’ Joe Biden appeared first on Granite Grok.

Mr. Cronin,

Jim Berlo and Jim Johnson, in response to the highly critical story you published for the Seacoast News on December 5, 2022, “Brentwood Newsletter under fire again after publishing Inflammatory’ opinion”, are submitting the following Letter below for a reference point to the content of our missive compared with commentary intent of your December 5, 2022, “Brentwood Newsletter under fire again after publishing Inflammatory’ opinion”:

Had Enough?

The September 13th, 2022, New Hampshire primary sent a powerful message to D.C. elitists McConnell and McCarthy! Their last-minute infusion of millions of dollars to defeat General Don Bolduc and Karoline Leavitt was a monumental failure. New Hampshire’s choice of candidates prevailed.

Brentwood currently has two excellent State Representatives: Melissa Litchfield and Josh Yokela. Their stewardship has been exemplary in moral and fiscal common-sense principles.

In contrast, the democratic State Rep challenger supports teachers educating grades K-3 in the fine art of radical “sexual orientation and gender identity”. This is sick! The grooming of 4–10-year-old children on “sexual orientation and gender identity” is supported by the current federal AND state Democratic Parties. The https://www.citizenscount.org/ website has a plethora of information.

We want to thank Jim Johnson, Jim Berlo for this Op-Ed. If you have an Op-Ed or LTE
you would like us to consider, please submit it to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.

Under this Democrat dreamland, inflation is out of control. The economy is being destroyed from within. Our retirements are sinking faster than an Oldsmobile Delmont. The country is under siege with crime, drugs, and constant government program expansion is the answer? Energy independence has been obliterated and is about to explode.

The challenges we face are self-inflicted, and we must not continually repeat the same mistakes. The election November 8th, 2022, is crucial to the future of Brentwood, the State of New Hampshire, America, and most importantly the future of our children and grandchildren for decades to come. Get out and vote!

Please vote LITCHFIELD and YOKELA for state Representatives. LEAVITT for CONGRESS, and DON BOLDUC for SENATE.

Jim Berlo and Jim Johnson

Now we continue:

Selectman Russ Kelly opines on behalf of the Selectmen, “This is inflammatory language. It doesn’t matter that it’s someone’s opinion…” “It’s an attack on educators and it’s an attack on LGBTQ people,” he said, referring to the recent shooting at the gay Club Q in Colorado Springs that killed five and injured 17 others…”.

Russ Kelly’s attack on us is far more insidious, dangerous, and divisive than anything we have written. The suggestion that our words contributed to the killing of five and injured 17 others…” is intended to trigger animosity towards us, with deliberate misrepresentation of a false narrative they created that never existed.

Patrick further writes:

“It was written by Jim Berlo and Jim Johnson in support of Brentwood’s two Republican state Reps. Melissa Litchfield and Josh Yokela and against a Democratic challenger in which they write “supports teachers in educating grades K-3 in the fine art of radical ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.'” They go on to write, “This is sick.”

The words we use in our sentences are deliberate and concise which leaves us wondering if you even read our letter? We were simply comparing the exemplary stewardship of the incumbents in moral and fiscal common-sense principles, compared to the challenger’s support of salacious coaching on sexuality in K-3.

Please refer to our letter above to view what was written. Truth matters.

Here is the Citizen’s Count question and Eric [Turer]’s response:

“Should New Hampshire ban discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in grades K-3? *** NO – I trust our educators to balance the needs of young students in addressing as they always have in instances when any questions of sexuality arise from children trying to understand the often complex world of adults around them. Bans like this serve no purpose other than to leave these children with no resources and likely greater fears and questions as they sense the inability of trusted adults to engage with them. ***

Eric Turer uses psychobabble to qualify his lack of trust in parents to care for their own children. He is dismissing the parent(s) in favor of school employees introducing sexuality to elementary school children. For the record we do not support the normalization of “sexual orientation” or , “gender identity” in any public educational curriculum K-12.”

The Selectmen have anointed themselves sole arbiters of free speech in Brentwood!

“This is inflammatory language. It doesn’t matter that it’s someone’s opinion.” Russ Kelly 12/05/2022.

Russ and his Selectmen cohorts could not be more wrong. Opinions do matter. Questions and answers posted on a reputable website like Citizens Count is an affirmation of one’s views, in this case Eric Turer’s. He trusts teachers over parents. Facts Matter!

Remember when Brentwood Selectman Jon Morgan‘s rush to blame the Atlanta shooting on Trump supporters bombed? We have seen the hysteria and smear tactics against the Brentwood Newsletter in the past. “Racism from a white man’s perspective” was written by a Vietnam Veteran and was impeccably researched and well written, yet it was declared racist by the bigoted left. Eric and Liz McConnell’s panic over Liz’s voting record printed in the Brentwood Newsletter in 2019.

Sidenote: her voting record was first published by GraniteGrok and the Brentwood Newsletter had my permission to re-post it.  -Skip

It was a record she could not defend. Brentwood Citizens saw through that. Now our Selectman have another orchestrated assault on the Brentwood Newsletter.

If our use of satire offends, “…the fine art of radical sexual orientation and gender identity”, get over it. And yes, “This is sick!”. There is nothing virtuous in the sexual exploitation of children, or just as important as the perverted attempts to eliminate parental authority over our children in the public school system, and the Brentwood Selectmen reinforce this mindset!

This should be of paramount concern to every resident in Brentwood! The persecution of Brentwood Newsletter (BNL) volunteers over the past couple years has been relentless. Yet, they have remarkably continued to provide a top-quality product on behalf of the citizens of Brentwood and despite affirmation for continued funding of the BNL at Town meeting, the board of Selectmen have pulled funding from the Newsletter. Citizens can rectify this injustice at the March 2023.

The PARENTS of children in K-3 rights are under assault. Ending Freedom of Speech is the true target of the Selectmen and always has been since 2019:

“it doesn’t matter that it’s someone’s opinion…”.

The Brentwood Newsletter has been around for 47 years, snuffed out by the Marxist/Socialist Brentwood Selectmen on 12/2022. What a legacy!

Jim Berlo & Jim Johnson

Patrick Cronin

 

Brentwood Newsletter under fire again after publishing ‘inflammatory’ opinion
Patrick Cronin
Portsmouth Herald
Published 5:07 a.m. ET Dec. 5, 2022

BRENTWOOD — The town-funded Brentwood Newsletter is again sparking outrage for its opinion content after a letter in the latest edition claimed the state Democratic Party supports “the grooming of 4- to 10-year-old children on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The letter titled “Had enough?” appeared in the November issue of the volunteer-run newsletter ahead of the Nov. 8 election.

It was written by Jim Berlo and Jim Johnson in support of Brentwood’s two Republican state Reps. Melissa Litchfield and Josh Yokela and against a Democratic challenger in which they write “supports teachers educating grades K-3 in the fine art of radical ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.'” They go on to write, “This is sick.”

The free monthly town newsletter is under fire by community members again for a recent letter on the opinion page. Courtesy

Several members of the Brentwood Selectboard expressed concern with the content of the letter during a Nov. 29 discussion with the Brentwood Newsletter staff regarding the publication’s proposed budget for the next year. The board talked about pulling the $17,574 the town provides to the nonprofit organization unless there is a signed memorandum of understanding between the town and the Newsletter that stipulates what kind of content is included in the newsletter.

“This is not freedom of speech…,” said Selectboard member Russ Kelly, who would like to see the opinion section removed from the Newsletter. “This is inflammatory language. It doesn’t matter that it’s someone’s opinion. They can express that opinion anywhere. They can stand up here (at the meeting) and do all they want without town money assisting them in getting that opinion out. That’s what we are talking about.”

Kelly said the letter was a “double attack.”

“It’s an attack on educators and it’s an attack on LGBTQ people,” he said, referring to the recent shooting at the gay Club Q in Colorado Springs that killed five and injured 17 others. “And it’s unacceptable in a product that is supported with dollars from the town.”

The conversation resurrects a prior town debate on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and whether it applies to an independent publication where funding is provided by the town. The funding strictly goes to the printing, postage, and distribution of the Newsletter to Brentwood residents. The publication has operated separately from the town by non-paid volunteers since it was created in 1977 by Linda Rousseau.

This isn’t the first time the Brentwood Newsletter has come under fire

Last year, several residents blasted the publication for publishing an editorial by Richard Gagnon titled “Racism: From a White Man’s Perspective.” The article criticized Black Lives Matter and questioned whether systemic racism exists. The opinion piece was called racist by some community members.

The opinion piece also brought up prior concerns with the Newsletter.

In 2019, the town’s Democratic Committee accused the publication of political bias after it printed voting records with slanted descriptions of the bills that were lifted from GraniteGrok, a right-wing conservative website.In response to the criticism, the Selectboard decided to pull the publication’s funding and go to Town Meeting voters to see whether they wanted to continue supporting it.

The majority of voters (105-61) voted in March to fund the Newsletter for the remainder of the year without a signed memorandum of understanding with the town, which the Selectboard had hoped to have in place. They also supported a second warrant article to have the funding put back in the budget next year. That article, however, was advisory and doesn’t bind the board.

‘Divisive, damning, problematic’ opinions should not be in a town newsletter

Kelly said while he voted to support funding then, he told the board he can’t do it now.

“I am firm in my belief there should be no opinion section in the Newsletter,” he said at the meeting, calling what he read “divisive, damning, problematic.”

“I understand the Newsletter doesn’t want the town to tell it how to operate,” he said. “We got the message clear last time … But I cannot be a yes vote going forward unless something changes fundamentally with the Newsletter.”

Selectboard Chair Andrew Artimovich told his fellow board members the Brentwood Newsletter gives him nightmares.

“The town is so divided about the Newsletter. Half the people want it the way it is, and half the people want a different version. It’s divided, just like the elections in November,” he said alluding to the split between Democrats and Republicans in town.

Brentwood, once a Republican stronghold, has become more purple in recent years. Republican incumbent Melissa Litchfield was defeated by Democrat Eric Turer by a vote of 1,231 to 1,208 after a recount of the Nov. 8 election.

“My personal opinion is the Newsletter is a newsletter,” Artimovich said. “It gives news about the town … What’s the Fire Department doing? What’s the Police Department doing? What’s the Boy Scouts doing?

Jim Hajjar, representing the Brentwood Newsletter, however, said even that information could also be considered “opinion.”

“We have (contributions) from the Selectboard in which some cases what is written up is an opinion,” Hajjar said. “Where do you draw the line?”

Another view: Diverse opinions further democracy

Hajjar told the Selectboard he believes criticism regarding the Newsletter comes from people “who don’t like seeing alternative opinions.” With or without the Newsletter, he said there will still be a division in the town.

“There is division, yes, but the only way we are going to solve this is by communicating and talking,” he said. “And I think if people are allowed to share their views, that’s how we are going to get together and work through some of these difficult problems.”

Hajjar told the Selectboard that everyone is welcome in town to submit a letter. All submissions appear on a page marked opinion which states, “that the views shared in this publication should not be construed to be the official opinion of the BNL, nor reflect the official policy or position of the Town of Brentwood.” It goes on to state, “unless otherwise noted, the words you read are solely the opinions of the writer(s) and are not intended to malign anyone or anything.”

“If someone says you’re not fact-checking or that’s not true or this and that, I think of a quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi because as a Jedi, he’s the best,” Hajjar said. “He told ‘Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.’”

He said if people disagree with a letter, they can respond by writing one of their own.

“Opinion vs. fact is a complicated thing,” he said. “We don’t have a Harry Potter ministry of truth that is going to go with a wand and say, ‘That’s true. That’s false.’ It doesn’t exist.”

He said the “wrong approach” would be to eliminate opinions altogether. Without opinions, he said, the Newsletter loses a lot of its power.

“We as a group are working hard,” Hajjar said. “We want to become more (about) bringing people together and not separating people off where they are just talking amongst themselves and sharing the same thoughts.”

What happens next?

The Selectboard voted unanimously to put the money for a newsletter in the town budget, but it doesn’t necessarily have to go to the Brentwood Newsletter.

Selectboard member Jennifer Jones’ motion stated if an agreement cannot be reached with the Brentwood Newsletter then the funding can be redirected to another vendor to provide a town newsletter.

Selectboard member Robert Mantegari was the sole member to speak in support of keeping the opinion section in the Brentwood Newsletter. “Having opinion pieces, whether it’s in the Exeter News-Letter, Portsmouth Herald or the Brentwood Newsletter, I think is important (for people) to get their voice out and express their own thought process and ideas,” he said at the meeting.

The board is scheduled to meet with the Newsletter staff Tuesday in nonpublic to come to terms with a memorandum of understanding.

The post WHO is the “Inflammatory” One, Mr. Cronin of the Seacoast Online? “Had Enough?” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Chiefs of Police are more often in political positions than the business of public safety, and this story comes from Los Angeles. Pandering to specific squeaky wheels is expected. Required.

 

[LAPD Chief Michel] Moore explained that a flag displayed in one station’s lobby spurred a complaint and he added, “It’s unfortunate that extremist groups have hijacked the use of the ‘Thin Blue Line flag’ to symbolize their undemocratic, racist, and bigoted views.”

 

Moore claims the American flag “should be proudly displayed in our lobbies whenever possible,” but when is that? The same groups consider it to be racist or supremacist. There’s no way to win this culture war if you give ground on everything from statues to flags to hats. At some point, you have conceded speech and thought because a few folks claim to be offended. And they know that.

Why don’t you?

Perhaps a training exercise is in order. We take Chief Moore’s letter and make a few amendments.

 

“Yesterday, we received a community complaint of the presence of a BLM Flag” with “the view that it symbolized support for violent extremist views, such as those represented by BLM, ANTIFA, and others.”

“I directed to have the item taken down from the public lobby. …

Moore explained that a flag displayed in one station’s lobby spurred a complaint and he added, “It’s unfortunate that extremist groups have hijacked the use of the ‘BLM Flag’ to symbolize their undemocratic, racist, and bigoted views.”

 

BLM’s 2020 summer of love resulted in tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Minority businesses, jobs, livelihoods, and lives were lost across the country; mainly in Democrat-Run urban areas where rioters looted, burned, attacked, and occupied public buildings and even declared autonomous zones where rape and murder were not uncommon.

The #woke left response was to cut public safety budgets, a signal to many police veterans that it was time to get out of Dodge. The result has been exponential spikes in property and violent crime in minority areas of large cities. In other words, they created a vacuum with violence that continues to harm the people for whom they marched.

The only resource available is the police because only criminals have guns in most urban crime islands. And the game is fixed against them. Officers who, knowing the score, suit up and try to make a difference. Their reward is to have the symbol of that sacrifice banned, at least in Los Angeles.

The Police Union isn’t having any of it.

 

“It is difficult to express the level of utter disgust and disappointment with Chief Moore’s politically pandering directive to remove Thin Blue Line flags and memorials for fallen officers from all public areas within our police stations. This direction came as a result of complaints from anti-police, criminal apologists, and activists who hold too much sway over our city leaders and, unfortunately, our Chief,” the Board of directors for the Los Angeles Police Protective League wrote in a statement.

The union said they “vehemently” opposed “this disrespectful and defeatist kowtowing by our department leadership to groups that praise the killing of police officers and outright call for violence against those of us in uniform. We have directly expressed our outrage to the Chief.”

 

And if they ban the BLM flag?

 

 

HT | Gateway Pundit

The post LAPD Bans The Thin Blue Line Flag ‘cuz Reasons, So, What If ..? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights in Colorado was supposed to keep taxpayers safe from ravenous politicians.  And the shysters even went along with it – while campaigning.

AFTER the campaign, the true colors came out – emphasis mine, reformatted

Last year, Colorado Democrats championed TABOR refunds as they campaigned for reelection. Yet not a week into the 2023 legislative session, they announced plans to try and halt those refunds indefinitely.

Bait and switch – after it was too late to switch your vote. The Democrats LIED to their voters – and I’m betting it wasn’t the first time.

A forthcoming bill by Rep. Cathy Kipp (D) and Sen. Rachel Zenzinger (D), if passed by the legislature and approved by voters, would allow the state to retain future tax refund dollars mandated under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Colorado’s Constitution. Kipp says the money would go to fund public schools.

Yeah, it’s “always for the teachers unions children”, isn’t it. Waggle that carrot in front of parents and then start in with the nasty of “what, you hate our children? You want them to remain stupid?” even as they are thinking “boy, these parents ARE stupid to be believing us!”.  And once siphoned off out of your pockets and “into the schools”, who knows what the next riverlets will be going to what pet projects.

Proponents of this idea have failed in the past to gather the 120,000 signatures required to put the question on the November ballot. The legislature can circumvent this requirement by passing the measure as a bill first. Every time voters speak on key issues related to TABOR, they send the same unambiguous message: “Leave TABOR alone and let us keep our money!”

Democratic legislators either didn’t get the message, or they just don’t care what voters think.

And just like always, Democrats CAN’T be honest with what they want to do TO you before the election. You only find out afterwards. Oh sure, they may let you have a bit of a peek but the complete unveiling is never what you expected from the signs, ads, and speeches.

Yet, not enough people “get” this part. And sometimes, Republicans do the same thing.

Isn’t that right, NH State Reps Sweeney,Alexander, and Berry?  Did YOU THREE tell your constituents what you three were going to do?

(H/T: Instapundit)

The post It’s ALWAYS About Democrats Keeping YOUR Money – Law Doesn’t Matter. Bait and Switch, Baby! appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Left’s Net-Zero mission translates to a net-zero lifestyle. A plan that adds millions of electric mouths to feed but contains no viable way to meet increased demand. Some legislators in Wyoming have found it lacking and are pushing back.

Related: Math is Hard, But Net Zero Emissions Math is Harder – It Can’t Be Done by 2050

 

The State of Wyoming is considering phasing out the sales of electric vehicles by 2035 to “ensure the stability” of its oil and gas industry.  Senators Jim Anderson, Brian Boner, Ed Cooper, Dan Dockstader, Representatives Donald Burkhart, Jr, and Bill Henderson sponsored the bill SJ0004.

In the bill, the group of politicians claimed that oil and gas production has been one of the state’s proud and valued industries, creating “countless jobs” and contributing “revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout the state’s history.”

 

Net Zero EVs by 2035. I like the sound of that.

I’m not entirely on board with this, however. Aside from the lies, hypocrisy, offshoring of emissions, and almost everything else (I’d never buy one), my problem with EVs is that they are elitist boutique talismans of a broken, woke Green culture. No average person can afford one without someone else helping to pay for it (taxpayers), and the reality is that they represent everything wrong with the Climate movement.

The Climate lies encapsulated into a pricey little package that eliminates the gas tax revenue stream while adding significantly more wear and tear on roads and bridges. EVs weigh much more than conventional vehicles of the same size, and no one is talking about that.

Stuff that up your list of under-funded red-listed bridges, you leftist pukes.

But if these one-percenter catastrophes had to compete honestly with gas combustion engines, I’d be OK with them. Yes, as an idea, they would have crashed and burned a decade earlier. Elon would not have had the money to buy Twitter and, by extension, expose the rampant abuse of power and censorship in the US government. Things would be different, but on the EV front, a bit more honest.

Team Green is trying to convince us that they have returned victorious from the Hero’s Journey, transcended the veil, and won god’s favor in the form of electric vehicles.

It’s total rubbish. And if a few State Senators in Wyoming want to have fun at their expense, have at it. Turnabout is fair play, as they say, and this is undoubtedly that.

 

 

The post Wyoming’s Idea of Net-Zero: Phase Out All New EV Auto Sales by 2035 appeared first on Granite Grok.

When it comes to addiction, so often the help people provide ends up becoming enabling. It’s difficult to ride this line. When you want to help someone you love, you have to be careful not to put them in a position to continue using drugs and alcohol. This is especially difficult when the person is a veteran.

If you know what they’ve been through, you are probably sympathetic to their drug and alcohol use. Whatever the situation, it’s vital to help this person in the right way. Helping doesn’t mean that you should continue to do so when they won’t stop abusing substances. However, if the veteran in your life expresses the desire to heal and recover, below are some ways that you can properly help them.

Offer Assistance with VA Bureaucracy

One of the biggest obstacles to veterans getting the assistance they need is navigating the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy to gain access to their benefits. It’s a dynamic, complicated system that requires a clear mind and patience. If you help the veteran in your life get through the VA bureaucracy, you could provide a way to get funding for proper treatment and access to veteran-specific facilities.

Another way to provide help in this regard is to take them to the offices and make sure they get the information and direction that the person needs. When it comes to veterans who need help for substance abuse, they might not be able to navigate the system—eliminating the possibility of subsidies and other resources. When the person wants to stop using drugs and alcohol, helping them through the VA is a positive and effective step towards healing and recovery.

Research Addiction Recovery Centers

When a person in your life needs addiction treatment and wants the help, you can aid by researching addiction recovery centers. Look for substance abuse programs for veterans, but keep in mind other details. For example, does the person need inpatient or outpatient treatment? Inpatient treatment requires patients to stay in the facility for about a month.

Outpatient is a similar treatment that allows patients to leave and stay at home, but it typically requires them to come to the facility daily for a check-up, counseling, and a 12-step meeting. There is also dual diagnosis treatment, which doesn’t just look at the addiction but takes into account underlying mental health issues.

For a lot of people struggling with substance abuse, and veterans in particular, there is a lot of self-medicating involved in their addiction. Many people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol are struggling with another mental health issue like depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or bipolar disorder. Depending on what the person needs and what kind of treatment will be most effective for them, you can help the veteran in your life by researching the right addiction rehab for their situation.

Drive Them to Meetings

If the veteran in your life doesn’t drive or have a car, another way you can help their recovery is by driving them to 12-step meetings. The 12-step group meeting is a huge part of addiction recovery. Some people in recovery go to a meeting every day. When someone doesn’t have the ability to drive, going to meetings is a lot more difficult. 

It is very helpful to drive the veteran in your life to their sobriety meetings. This is only if they are serious about their recovery, of course. Make a deal that you will take them to their meetings if they stay sober. You can even offer to take them out to eat afterwards. It’s just vital to ensure that the person is serious about their sobriety.

A lot of people make the mistake of housing someone addicted to drugs or alcohol that doesn’t want to stop. When the person is committed to recovery, you can help them quite a bit. Relapse is a part of the illness, but if the veteran in your life is dedicated to getting better, you will have the opportunity to offer them real help.

Whether you are helping them navigate the VA, researching treatment centers, taking them to meetings, providing access to shelter, or helping them find a job, it’s all good if the person is dedicated to recovery, healing, and sobriety. If they aren’t, there is not much you can do to help.

The post How to Properly Help a Veteran Struggling with Addiction appeared first on Granite Grok.

Joe Biden and his administration are transforming our country, setting new standards, and redefining essential parameters. We have seen how it is more important to have diversity in our leaders and staff than competence.

We have the elderly, people of color, gays, transgender people, and even cross-dressers from the President to Directors in our Nuclear Energy Agency instead of the greatest minds available. This change in priority brought complete dysfunction to our Executive Branch and a country floundering when we should be thriving as we come out of the Pandemic.

We have a population struggling to balance budgets with skyrocketing costs and supply chain issues while the government finds creative new ways to define inflation and recession. The President gaslights America telling how successful his economic policies are as he taints the data to support his lies. Very few in government or the media call him out on his charade and sleight of hand.

We witnessed one of the greatest embarrassments of our military in the desertion of Afghanistan, leaving billions of dollars worth of equipment, untold numbers of Americans, and thousands of civilian aids to the will of the Taliban. We airlifted thousands of unvetted people from Afghanistan and dispersed them throughout our country while we abandoned thousands of Afghans that risked their lives to support our military. As we watch Afghans clinging to American transport jets taxiing down the runway, our President is lauding the most extraordinary human evacuation in history. President Biden tells us not to believe our eyes but to listen to the story he is weaving.

We watch the insurrection and assault at the Southern Border, with millions of unvetted people entering and dispersing throughout America and an administration that refers to the crisis as an immigration problem. The problem, in their eyes, is not the millions invading our country but the lack of speed in processing them. Our sovereignty has been destroyed.

We now manipulate the news to impact elections. We create fictitious stories like the Russian Dosier and use them to destroy a Presidency and then suppress the truth of the Biden Laptop so that it will not kill a candidacy. We use the FBI to raid a former President’s home in search of classified documents but sit back as a sitting President has his lawyers search his property for similar documents with no FBI agents to be seen. The media, which is supposed to protect the people from such hypocrisy, is complicit in its silence.

We have an incompetent Press Secretary who is only at the podium because of her gender, color, and sexual orientation and repeats incessantly how transparent this administration is and then refuses to answer questions citing “the process.” Hiding behind the process, referring all questions to the DOJ, and holding the release of information until it is politically expedient is not transparent. But it is in today’s America thanks to Joe Biden and Democrats.

The health and future of this country should concern every American. We are losing our identity, and the many problems we see are dismissed by redefining them. Our cities are mismanaged into ruin, and it will inevitably spread to the suburbs. Our government proves to be more corrupt daily, and our education system is failing our future generations. Money is becoming meaningless, and we used to think that government spending and wasting billions was a concern, and now we talk in the trillions. As we saw in the 2022 midterms, the saddest thing might be that we keep sending the same people to Washington and expecting better results. We are conspiring in our demise. Let’s wake up and demand better.

The post Transparency is Now Redefined appeared first on Granite Grok.

NO intelligent person in Nashua, which did NOT benefit from the advertised tax relief for New Hampshire towns, should be supporting His Excellency, Chris Sununu.

It has also been my past observation that he and the Hizzonner (Mayor Donchess) do not feel warm and fuzzy about each other.

At least Senator Jeb Bradley eventually replied to my open email to him inquiring about his comment to Adam Sexton.

This is an excerpt from an NH Journal article about Donna Soucy, the Queen Bee of the senate enemy camp. Let’s talk about her right-hand woman, Rosenwald, you know, the one with the Harvard degree and no constituents in the suburbs.

 

 

WHY isn’t her two-thirds of the city of Nashua asking WHY the city didn’t make the 82% cut?

Why isn’t her ilk (16 sworn-in Democrat reps that are HER constituents plus nine more locals) asking WHERE the money went???

What say you, Mr. & Mrs. Newman?
What say you, Mr. Mayor & Aldermen?

BTW, 2023 is an election year here in the city. Vote wisely.

 

The post Why Didn’t Nashua Make the Cut? appeared first on Granite Grok.

You’ve got to hand it to the Democrats. Once they set their minds on something, they won’t let it go.

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, they were mortified. They despised Trump because he was an outsider. Because he defeated their odds-on favorite to win the election.

And because he openly mocked his political opponents. They hated him because he vowed to put America first. In fact, his presidency did give us a robust economy, low inflation, energy independence, and a secure border.

But Democrats were unimpressed with Trump’s successes. They decided he had to go and he must never be allowed in politics again.

So first, they fabricated the Russian collusion story, accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russians to win his election. Trump was exonerated after a lengthy and costly investigation by a special council. We later learned that Hillary Clinton, the Democrat candidate, actually approved the plan to spread the false story.

After Trump’s vindication, Democrats were undeterred.

Their next opportunity came on July 25, 2019, based on a telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. A U.S. Army officer, assigned to the National Security Council, had access to the call, and decided some of Trump’s remarks were “improper.” He filed a complaint with the lead counsel for the NSC.

Most of that telephone conversation was innocuous, but in his closing remarks, Trump added, “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.” He was talking about the Burisma scandal.

Democrats had no interest in the documented fact that Biden, as vice president, did force the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden’s business dealings. But they did latch on to Trump’s remarks, arguing that they could be construed as a “high crime.” Since Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, they had no trouble launching impeachment proceedings – which, of course, failed in the Senate.

Then came the January 6, 2021 incident at the U.S. Capitol, spawned by voting irregularities in the 2020 election. Democrats immediately called the skirmish an attempt to take over our government and blamed Trump for inciting an “insurrection.” That became the basis for his unprecedented second impeachment, which also failed.

But Democrats were now more determined than ever to end Trump’s political future, so they assembled a one-sided panel, the January 6th Committee, which held endless televised hearings, clearly intended to sway public opinion.

Still, Donald Trump remained a viable political candidate and now a declared presidential candidate for 2024.

On August 8, 2022, The Attorney General and Biden’s Department of Justice pulled out all stops. They did something that had never before been contemplated in America, something that is only done in third-world countries. They decided to throw the full force of the government against a former president. They used the FBI to execute a brazen, armed raid at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago residence, which was secured by armed Secret Service agents. Ostensibly, they wanted to recover classified documents, which Trump argued had been declassified.

Putting aside the heavy-handed tactics of the DOJ and FBI, the mind-blowing hypocrisy was obvious. It was just a few years prior, during Trump’s first presidential campaign, that the FBI Director casually dismissed an egregious breach of national security by Hillary Clinton, Trump’s political rival. He acknowledged that, as Secretary of State, Clinton’s reckless use of an unapproved private server violated the law and likely exposed national security information to our global adversaries. Then he went on to say that the case was just not prosecutable.

But none of that mattered in the wake of the Mar-A-Lago raid. Democrats who were not openly exuberant were at last content. They talked about Trump’s breach of national security and the need for accountability. They reminded us ad nauseam that “No one is above the law.” Joe Biden was more subdued, but just as critical. He confided his thoughts during a 60 Minutes interview, “How could that possibly happen?” He wondered, “How anyone could be that irresponsible?”

But those pontificating Democrats are now learning there’s truth in the adage, “What goes around comes around.”

With the revelation that improperly stored classified documents were found in Biden’s garage and other places under his control, supporters scrambled to explain it away. But having already appointed a special counsel to investigate the case against Trump, and with the DOJ credibility already stretched to the limit, the Attorney General was forced to appoint another special counsel.

Given the clear political bias of this AG, Americans know that Biden has nothing to worry about by this appointment. But there’s another issue that should concern him.

Now that Democrats lowered the threshold for impeaching a U.S. President, Biden could soon face his own impeachment proceedings. The new criteria established by Democrats requires nothing more than a House of Representatives controlled by the opposition party, and any improper action by the president.

If Joe Biden does become the fourth president to be impeached, don’t call it retribution by Republicans. Impeachment is completely justified by Biden’s malfeasance – his defiance of immigration laws, his refusal to protect America’s border, and the disastrous impact it’s having on our country. Add to that the unmistakable signs of influence peddling – the vast sums of money the Biden family received from countries like Ukraine, Russia, and China. Followed by such inexplicable foreign policy as the sale of our strategic oil reserves to China, reasonable people are beginning to demand answers.

Maybe it’s Karma, but Biden and the Democrats are the biggest contributors to his precarious situation.

The post Dems Learn That What Goes around Comes Around appeared first on Granite Grok.

Talk is cheap, especially in super-white super Democrat-controlled Vermont, where only 6.4% of the population is, by all progressive accounts, not systemically racist.

So they’ve got that going for them and all the other “amenities” that follow years of progressive rule. New gun restrictions are on the table; crime is rising, welfare, taxes, can’t hire enough cops, drugs, human trafficking, a porous border, and they also have a climate council.

The twenty-three-member committee coordinates Vermont’s Marxist great leap backward. A return to 19th-century solutions and lifestyles. But they’ve screwed that up too.

 

Joining [Judy] Dow [a Vermonter of Abenaki descent] was Ana Mejia, an organizing director at Rights & Democracy, who repeatedly accused the Council of treating BIPOC members as “tokens,” and asked why out of 23 official council members (at least three of the 23 seats are currently vacant), there were zero representing the BIPOC community.

 

As we all know, the BIPOC community is forever on the wrong end of whatever it is; transportation, climate, COVID, and representation, and white folks are to blame. And I’m not making the case that they are right or wrong, especially in pasty white Democrat-controlled Vermont. Using the Climate Scaremongering Committee as an example, demographically, there should be .64 BIPOC members out of every ten, so with 23 seats, that’s 1.47 people who are indigenous or of color (I’ll leave the indigenous lie alone for this debate).

According to the reporting,

 

The Global Warming Solutions Act calls for the Senate Committee on Committees to appoint seven members to the Council, the Speaker of the House to appoint eight, and the Governor’s Administration to supply eight.

None of the Senate appointees come from BIPOC communities. From the administration, only Dr. Harry Chen, interim commissioner, Department for Children and Families, comes from a BIPOC community. Regarding the speaker of the House’s appointments, of the four seats filled, none are from BIPOC communities, and the other four have been left somewhat inexplicably vacant since Nov. 1.

 

Democrats control the legislature, despite having 15 seats to fill, and have so far only picked systemic racists* for the new year. The governor, who is marginally Republican, chose at least one person of color.

Republicans 12.5% BIPOC appointees, Democrats 0%.

But wait, it gets better.

 

[Of] those eight House appointees, only three chose to step down at the end of their terms on Oct. 31. Five asked to be reappointed. The speaker reappointed four of them. The fifth, Dr. Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux, a professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Vermont, who is Black and was the only BIPOC House appointee, was not reappointed despite her request, for reasons that have not been made clear.

 

So the committee had a demographic excess of people of color—two as opposed to 1.5, but the Democrat-controlled House has failed to re-appoint a black woman (whatever that is), and no one seems to know why?

It’s got to be racism.

We know this because were it a Republican-controlled House, it would be…racism! White Supremacy. Oppression! But Republicans are consistently not racist or – to appease the easily-triggered-race-pimps – less racist than Democrats who can’t shut up about it, while everything the left does invariably harms people of color.

Is it a coincidence that their ideological ancestors opposed integration and equal rights for black Americans and were the defenders of slavery?

The same people and party that increasingly trap people of color on crime-riddled urban plantations with underperforming government schools and no jobs.

I don’t think it is a coincidence, but you’re entitled to your denial, especially if you are a white Democrat in Vermont.

 

 

HT | True North Reports

The post Are Vermont Democrats Racist? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The CLUCKER COMMISSION-consisting of whatever of my coop was present, plus two bluebirds that forgot to fly south for winter-held and emergency session three days ago. I have no idea why.

I think they forgot that each year they award the completely useless, “doesn’t even have bragging rights” award for the person who is the worst member of the Republican party. The commission has absolutely no standards they rely upon to make their decision (my God, man, they are chickens). If you have a problem with their decision, email them at…whoa! they got no email. Well then, if you have a complaint, suck it up and realize they don’t care.

Having set the stage then-…drum roll, please…this year the award for worst republican goes to …. Governor Sununu.

Here are the various reasons the CLUCKERS selected our multi-term Executive for this award:

1. HE WINS.
No doubt the worst offense any Republican can impose on this party is to win elections.

I kid you not-Sununu is the worst of the worst in this regard.

He wins and wins and wins. No doubt this is because of a further violation-he actually is supported by a big majority of voters, having received the highest favorability rating of any republican in the last 6 years.

Keep in mind-the Republican leadership (huh-yea, they do have a leadership they claim) has made a concerted effort to develop a losing strategy. They have been quite successful snatching defeat out of the mouth of victory at every stage of the game.

Take their election strategy (developed with the help of every democrat in New Hampshire): they actively work to gut any chance a Republican candidate can muster in the primary.

They developed an extraordinary rule-the party cannot get involved in the primary. The party must sit on its thumbs until after the primary.
The Democrats-knowing this-eagerly and gleefully step into the Republican primary and do two things:

1. They get one of the Rinos to run against the other candidates. He/she has no chance of winning and does not even campaign. But, my running, the effect is that the GOP invokes this rule and does nothing.

2. The Democrats, not being inhibited by any such disabling rule, jump into the GOP primary, pick the worst candidate running and then do whatever it takes to get that person elected. Money. t.v ads. radio. By the time the primary is over, the Republicans have their choice narrowed to the worst candidates… all selected by the Democrats. After the last elections, the Democrats celebrated the fact they funded Bolduc, Barnes and the young lady running against Papas.

The leadership of the New Hampshire GOP knows all about this Democrat strategy but willingly sits on the sidelines and does nothing. They even refuse to raise money, prepare for the general or do anything remotely attributed to a winning attitude. They also have willingly chosen to keep this totally dysfunctional system in effect for as long as anyone can think.

The Clucker commission looked high and low for anyone in GOP leadership who even remotely thought the system was a problem or needed correction–AND FOUND NONE. (One of the least vocal members of the commission finally spoke: why NOT JUST CHANGE THE RULE? Or change the primary(AS IN EITHER 1. MOVE THE DATE BACK TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE AS THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, SO THE TIME BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND ELECTION GIVES THE GOP LEADERSHIP A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY MOUNT A CAMPAIGN FOR THE CANDIDATECHANGE OR 2. UNDER NEW HAMPSHIRE LAW, HAVE THE ALTERNATE FORM OF A PRIMARY WHERE THE GOP CAN CONTROL WHO RUNS AND WHO VOTES. IT’S IN THE ELECTION STATUT0. MAYBE READ IT)

Or tell the leadership to do something–anything–to get the Democrats out of the GOP.

NOTHING. NO RESPONSE.
In a party whose structure is set up to lose, you can imagine why Sununu is hands down the worst Republican out there. Everything he does goes against the grain of what the GOP does. But there is more.

2. HE DOES REPUBLICAN THINGS WHILE IN OFFICE!

The DEMOCRATS control the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES FOR A REASON. They want to enact the Democrats’ progressive programs. By turning over to the Democrats the right to pick the GOP candidates, obviously, it must be the GOP agenda to enact the Democrat programs. Well, there Sununu goes again-screwing with the UNIPARTY (oops, i mean GOP) plan!

Here is what this “horrible” man did:

1. He balanced the budget without a tax increase.
2. He reduced and eliminated all kinds of taxes.
3. He vetoed several bills from the Democrats that would have imposed an income tax.
4. He maintained the gun rights against Democrats’ efforts to curtail.
5. He signed the 20-week abortion bill and vetoed the Democrats’ efforts to make New Hampshire an abortion-on-demand” right up to time of birth” state.

Obviously, this again would be enough to make him a winner of this award. but there is more:

3. HE HAS WITHSTOOD THE ASSAULT BY THE UNIPARTY(DAM- SORRY, I MEAN GOP) AND MAINTAINED HIS POPULARITY DESPITE BEING CALLED-GOD FORBID-A DEMOCRAT.

What an incredible strategy the Democrats have-they want to attack Sununu on the grounds that he is really nothing more than one of them. It possibly could work on a lesser candidate, but this “looser” SUNUNU (actually, by winning this award, he is technically a winner, but he is only a “winner” here because, in the eyes of the GOP, he is a looser under their terms of engagement) HAS FIGURED OUT A WAY TO SIDESTEP THE ATTACKS.

Many in the GOP leadership are stumped by this one. They have vilified him every step of the way–calling him names like “SUN KING”(he is not even French, you dummy) and making personal attacks on him for even the slightest dent in his shiny armor.

One member of the Clucker Commission suggested a possible answer:

Maybe Sununu’s supporters know what a real DEMOCRAT LOOKS LIKE. Wow! Maybe that is the answer. I came from California–you know, the place ruled by Newsome and Pelosi. Consider what the “REAL” New Hampshire(modeled on California) Democrats want to do that Sununu stopped:

1. California has a 72% tax rate. Yup! you read that right:

First, Federal tax.
Second, California has its own income tax-13% per cent.
Third, they have a sales tax of anywhere from 8% to 10 %.
Fourth, they have property taxes that are higher than anything we pay in New Hampshire.
Fifth, they tax the manure out of everything -water, electricity, gasoline, cow farts.

2.They never balance their budget.
The California Constitution requires a balanced budget.
So? The legislature spends whatever they want and then passes a new tax to cover it. For example, they passed a 1% income tax increase (over and above the 13%) and labeled it a “mental health” surcharge.

3.California/Democrats never saw a gun restriction law that they did not like.

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision protecting 2A rights, California essentially restricted guns out of existence. You could have a gun in your house only-cannot take it outside-but only if you put the ammo in one safe, the gun in another and put a trigger lock on it before putting it in the safe.

If a bad guy broke into your house, and you shoot him in self-defense, you are still charged with murder unless you can prove that you had no chance of escape.

But that is not the worst of it-the DEMOCRATS and UNIPARTY members of the California legislature focused on bullets. No lead allowed (environmentally bad!!!); only steel. Also, each bullet needs to have a serial number. Noone makes them but despite that a Judge upheld the law arguing that even though no one makes serial number bullets, the law will encourage someone to make them.

4. Abortion is on demand up to and after the baby is born. If it is born alive, ok to terminate. They even proposed that a child could be “Aborted” up to 30 days after birth.

Sooooo! Maybe the SUNUNU supporters think the claim he is actually Democrat FAILS BECAUSE THEY KNOW what a real Democrat is like.

Maybe they know what the Democrats in New Hampshire will do if they actually get elected to SUNUNU’S JOB.

Maybe they realize that without the Governor acting like a Republican and stopping the Democrat agenda, we would all be fighting over a bunch of California laws.

IN CONCLUSION: there you have it. SUNUNU hands down is the worst Republican in New Hampshire.

One advisory: my chickens live in Hollis. THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY WHAT THEY SAW FROM HOLLIS GOP LEADERSHIP IN THE LAST ELECTION.
The town GOP leadership CLEARLY FOLLOWED THE STANDARD REPUBLICAN STRATEGY AND EFFECTIVELY MADE SURE THAT SOME REALLY TALENTED CANDIDATES LOST.

AND SOME DEMOCRATS WHO CLEARLY WANT TO IMPOSE DEMOCRATS’ INCOME TAX, ABORTION LAWS, AND GUN RESTRICTIONS GOT ELECTED.

WITH THE HOLLIS REPRESENTATIVES CLEARLY GOING OVER TO THE DEMOCRAT AGENDA, THINK OF THE HORRORS OF HAVING SUNUNU AS GOVERNOR.

WHO KNOWS WHAT DEMOCRAT/COMMUNIST/UNIPARTY LAW HE MIGHT VETO.

The post Clucker Commission Unanimous-Sununu Worst Republican appeared first on Granite Grok.