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

Emphasis was added at the source.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

We were right about that too.

 

 

HT | Igor Chudov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Lack of Focus on Target Audience

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

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

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

2. Lack of Emphasis on Market Research

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

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

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

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

3. Poorly Executed Content

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

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

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

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

4. Inconsistent Publishing Schedule

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

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

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

Avoid Errors in Content Marketing Campaigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 6, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H/T: ZeroHedge)

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

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

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

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

Indoctrination into the Radical Faeries:

Roger Anthony Mapes 4 (Rev. Yolanda) was born in 1956 in the city of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He was raised as a Methodist, and then in 1974, he became an evangelical “Jesus Freak” and moved to a commune called Jesus Manor. He ended up leaving the faith to pursue a sinful homosexual relationship.

Mapes eventually went to theater school and moved to New York City in the early 90s, where he met a group called the Radical Faeries 5; Mapes moved into a commune with them in 1993 in Vermont. The Radical Faeries 6 are a worldwide network and counter-cultural movement seeking to redefine “queer consciousness” through “secular spirituality.” The Radical Faeries 7 reject the classical understanding of men and women and the heterosexual relationship. They instead seek to destroy what they see as “hetero-imitation” by grooming children from an early age. They were born during the Sexual Revolution 8 and grew rapidly under the supervision of communist Harry Hay 9, Don Kilhefner 10, and Mitchell Walker 11.

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

One Faith Ministry and his own church:

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

Below is an quote from their site:

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

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

Spotlight on Grooming:

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

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

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

In summary,

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

An incredulous president Trump was asked to comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

It’s not the whole song.

 

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

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

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

Just groomin’ on a weekday afternoon

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation:

Whaddya in for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause

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

Our underlying findings are pretty much consistent:

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

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

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

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

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

Application to Non-Delegation

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rob Natelson | The Tenth Amendment Center

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

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

 

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

 

Ouch.

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

So, she is a typical liberal?

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

America has a new flag. We will wave the old flag on occasion, as long as it is clear that the old flag … the one with the stars and the stripes … is subordinate to the new flag. But just keep kidding yourselves … either that all that is needed is to nominate Trump or, alternatively, all that is needed is to nominate DeSantis (or someone else) … and the ballot-harvesting will magically no longer matter; the Regime-media/Big-tech censorship will be no more; the USDOJ/FBI/CIA/etc. will not interfere in this election like they’ve interfered in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022. America’s institutions are irreparably rotten; they are rife with Communists … but just keep pretending we are just one more tax-cut away from restoring America.

Today, the People's House – your house – sends a clear message to the country and to the world.

America is a nation of pride. pic.twitter.com/ZZS9oTpDww

— President Biden (@POTUS) June 11, 2023

“What does it mean when my nation places a new flag in a position of primacy on the building that houses the president?” you might be saying to yourself pic.twitter.com/UTULYNy7Th

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) June 11, 2023

The post It’s NOT Your Country Anymore … At What Point Will You WTFU And Realize That? appeared first on Granite Grok.

As regular readers know, I am beyond the coerciveness of being told to use “preferred pronouns” with respect to those suffering from gender dysphoria. And with respect to “respect”, what the Freedom-weak people don’t understand, it’s a tactic to impress upon you your “language enslavement by proxy and repetition” if you use them to “show respect”. After all, that “respect” suffers a major failure – it’s only a one-way term when it comes to this issue (thus, the word “enslavement”).

I refuse the “demand to respect me” demand because, when you really examine “enslavement”, it shows ME no respect at all. Respect is only a one-way street – they demand and I must do. It doesn’t matter to them what my conscience says, it doesn’t matter to them what I believe, it doesn’t matter to them what English grammar rules are,

Sidenote: go ahead and start writing a couple of paragraphs using only the incorrect and made-up pronouns demanded of you for a conversation concerning five trans people (three of them use “they/them”.  Then read it back and see if it makes any sense at all. Then give it to a friend to read and get their opinion. I’m betting it will be utter nonsense.

…it doesn’t matter to them what your Free Speech Rights are; all that matters is that you bow to their demands.

All that does matter is that you give them what they demand. Nothing less, but think of that as a launching point for more demands. It is their version of Orwell’s ‘1984’ version of 2+2=5; makes you believe in something that isn’t true.

And “respect” came up with Fox News “The Five” panel (I continue to watch that show and Gutfield but no other Fox News programs – not even as “background noise”) when they discussed Riley Gaines complaining about William “Lia” Thomas destroying womens’ swimming and displaying himself full Monty in their lockerroom knowing that there was nothing the rest of the team could do about it.

The co-hosts on a Fox News panel had a heated exchange about whether it would “hurt” to use someone’s preferred pronouns. During a segment of “The Five” Thursday, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov brought up attacks targeted against transgender people. “It is important to treat people with dignity and respect when you are talking about these issues,” Tarlov began, adding, “And part of that is using the correct pronouns…”

Co-host Jeanine Pirro quickly interjected to say, “No.”

“Yes, it is. It doesn’t hurt you at all to call Lia Thomas ‘she,’” Tarlov shot back.

'The Five' lose their shit when liberal host Jessica Tarlov says it doesn't hurt them to refer to Lia Thomas as she/her.

"No!"

"It makes me a liar!"

"You have NO RIGHT to compel me to say ANYTHING!" pic.twitter.com/PkG83K3o8k

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) April 27, 2023

The money lines for me:

Guest Joey Jones said, “It makes me a liar.”
“You have NO RIGHT to compel me to say ANYTHING!”

I’m tired of being told what to do, especially by children (either by age, mentality, or lack of truthfulness). I’m tired of people telling me my eyes are lying to me. I’m tired of realizing that the Bio degree I earned and paid for is of no account. I’m tired of being told that my faith values are disgusting. I’m tired that they believe and hold that I should go quietly “into their good night” and excoriate me at the same time.

You want to try to “coerce” me on this? No, “quietly” will not be a word to apply to THAT situation.

And NO, there are no attacks going on the way that the Trans-Authoritarians want you to believe is. When the Democrat run parts of Government are constantly in our faces with the Alphabet Mafia suite of flags, changing laws and ordinances to give them special rights not meant for others, there’s no problem. You want attacks? Look at the FBI stats on attack on Jews…I’ll wait while you do.

And no, I will NOT stand for the transgender attempt to redefine “attack” to include any criticism against their movement as the clip shows.  Guttfield is absolutely right about this yet it is happening.

As I have said many times before, if you think you are something that you can never be, fine – have at it. If your friends and family want to go along with it, more power to you. But DON’T force me (and a lot of others) to cooperate, respect, affirm, or be co-opted by what your demands are.

Not happening. Tarlov says to “treat people with dignity and respect” – why should I when they aren’t respecting me? She can be led by leash if she wishes but I refuse to wear that dog collar.

(H/T: IJR)

The post Yes, It Does “Hurt” to Use Coerced Pronouns – Listen to the ‘The Five’ Panel appeared first on Granite Grok.

They wonder why.

If there’s a problem, they want to fix it. Without an obvious explanation such as family, friend, pet, or growth-related problem, parents seek input from anyone they think might help, e.g., siblings, teachers, coaches, doctors, et al.   Parents assume that everyone will want to help fix their child’s problem.

Unfortunately, that may not be true.  New Hampshire Democrat legislators stopped the Parental Rights Law (SB272) that would require school employees to provide honest and complete responses to parents’, except known abusive parents, inquiries.

Democrats have all decided that some people (i.e., school officials including teachers) can withhold information from parents including about a student’s gender confusion or inclinations.   People who may barely know your child.  People who often poorly do the job for which they were trained.  People who may be introducing your child to sex or gender ideas for which he/she is not mature enough.   People who may be confusing your child about his/her gender by asking your son or daughter if he/she is really a boy/girl.   People who may be taking advantage of your child and telling your child to keep secrets from you.

Democrats decided that these people can withhold information from you, your child’s loving parents.

The Democrats who stopped the Parental Rights bill say that you (who gave birth to this child, feed this child, clothe this child, protect, teach, encourage, and love this child whom you would sacrifice your life to protect) don’t have a right to know about every issue your child may be having.

They don’t trust you.

Did you vote for Democrats so they could make you parents worry, watch your child suffer, and struggle to identify the problem your child is having while schools withhold the information you need to help your child?

The post What Do Parents Do When Their Child’s Behavior Changes Significantly? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Senator Tim Scott and Former Governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley of South Carolina have incredible life stories that should bring hope to every American. They are genuine American tales of how anyone can rise from the lowest to the highest levels of success if they have the mindset to do so.

They are the epitome of everyone in America having the opportunity to reach their highest potential, only challenged by their self-doubt. As these two strive for the highest seat of office in the free world, they should be embraced, except for one common fact. These two people of color are Conservative. They are Republicans. If they were Democrats, they would be canonized, but the Left cannot, and will not, accept their stories, and both are ridiculed and told they are exceptions and not American success stories. How terribly sad that we cannot come together and celebrate the lives of Tim Scott and Nikki Haley.

They have different beginnings, but both histories are impressive. Scott was the grandson of a cotton picker who lived during the Jim Crow era in America. Tim grew up in a fatherless home, raised by a strong mother who worked tirelessly for Tim to have a better life, and he rewarded her with an incredible life story. Tim became the first person of color to serve in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Scott is still a young man, and his story is still being written. As he likes to say on the campaign trail, his family has gone from picking cotton to the United States Congress in one generation.

Nikki Haley’s parents were both successful in their native India. Her father had been a professor at Punjab Agricultural University, and her mother received her law degree from the University of Delhi. Haley has been known by her middle name, Nikki, a Punjabi name meaning “little one,” since her earliest years. Though successful in India, they came to America for an even better life for their family. Settling in South Carolina, they saw their daughter graduate from Clemson University and go on to become the first female Governor of the Palmetto State. She later served two years as the US Ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration. Haley is now the first woman of color to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

The Left has attacked Haley and Tim in an incredible show of jealousy and contempt. The anger comes from the fact that two people of color, especially from the South, should be Democrats. They certainly have no place to be Conservative Republicans. They are told they are exceptions and are wrong to say to the American people that they are examples of how anyone can aspire to succeed in this great country.

The women of The View have been especially critical of the two candidates. It is a travesty that these women have such power in our country. Though viewership is down, millions still tune in daily to listen to these women attack America and blame the Republican Party for all of its woes. Too many people derive their daily news from these self-appointed keepers of Democracy. Scott actually ventured into the pit of The View to challenge the comments of its star, Joy Behar. She had labeled him as an exception as she sits daily with two co-stars who are women of color. Behar chose to take the day off rather than confront Scott showing her cowardice in backing her statement. But that is what the Left does. It makes rash, often untrue statements. The media picks them up, which validates them, and then they back away when challenged about their words.

I do not think either can win the nomination, but in our wild world of politics, who can say anything is impossible? Even if running for the second seat, it will write an incredible new chapter in either biography.

The post You Are An Exception, Not A Success Story appeared first on Granite Grok.

Another Human Rights Commission – this time Washington State – told the Christian owners of a women’s Spa that they could not refuse service to transwomen who had not had surgery (discrimination!), even though several services required customers to be naked.

 

The spa was described by its owners, who are Christian, as being designed based on the belief that “a male and a female should not ordinarily be in each other’s presence while in the nude unless married to each other,” according to a complaint filed by the owners.

Many services provided by the spa require patrons to be fully naked, and the employees who work on-site are all female.

 

The owners challenged the “anti-discrimmination” law claiming it discriminated against them. The Judge didn’t see it.

 

The constitutional rights of the owners, employees, and patrons of the Olympus Spa in Washington state were not infringed when officials in the state ordered the facility to provide services to “transgender women” with male genitalia, Washington District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein said in a June 5 ruling. …

[Also]

“The Court does not minimize the privacy concerns at play when employees are performing exfoliating massages on nude patrons. Aside from this nudity, though, there is simply nothing private about the relationship between Olympus Spa, its employees, and the random strangers who walk in the door seeking a massage,” she said. “Nor is there anything selective about the association at issue beyond Olympus Spa’s ‘biological women’ policy. “The Court therefore has little difficulty concluding that the personal attachments implicated here are too attenuated to qualify for constitutional protection.”

 

And there is some debate as to whether the individual who filed the discrimination complaint was ever at either of their facilities.

 

Haven Wilvich, a male who identified as a woman yet has not undergone sex change surgery …  alleged that the spa “denied me services and stated that transgender women without surgery are not welcome because it could make other customers and staff uncomfortable.”

Spa policy dictates only admitting females older than 13.

An investigation by the spa owners found no evidence that Wilvich had ever been to the spa, which has facilities in Tacoma and Lynnwood and has been operating for more than 20 years. Myoon Woon Lee, one of the spa owners, also expressed concern that exposing female customers, especially minors, to male genitalia could open the spa up to criminal penalties based on state laws governing lewd conduct and public indecency.

 

At issue then is not if you are trans but if you genuinely are trans and not just a guy who might want to wave their junk around in front of women and girls as young as thirteen.

I’m sure the state would have been happy to oblige by repealing the indecency statute, or maybe not – being charged with that would be a doozy of a thing and probably ruin the Spa. That’s not to say that the publicity and likelihood that women might encounter man parts based on this ruling won’t cut into their customer traffic and ruin them anyway.

Ladies, we have this unique spa experience and look, pensis, at no extra charge. And hey, maybe they do more business as the clientele shifts, but what are the odds this doesn’t hurt their business? And it is a familiar pattern. From Bakers to Photographers to artists to dating services – Christian businesses are targeted, not so that gender warriors can use their services but to put them out of business.

Remember Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Or how about Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop? Phillips got his case to the US Supreme Court and won. Still, the state and the Gaystapo came at him again (and again)—lawfare to destroy the man, his business, and his way of life even though there were dozens of places a gay couple could go to get a wedding cake and he had a protected right under the First Amendment.

Cultural assault and battery.

This sounds like that.

 

 

The post Judge Orders Women’s Spa to Allow Transwomen and their Exposed Junk appeared first on Granite Grok.

Earlier this year, the NH House of Representatives passed an amended version of HB 315, prohibiting provocations based on a victim’s actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation from being used as a defense in a criminal case. 

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

While the original text of this bill was framed as a prohibition against the so-called, “gay panic defense,” in reality, it would have promoted sexual harassment by removing any ability for a woman on trial for murder to claim that she acted in self-defense against unwanted romantic or sexual advances. Thankfully, the amended version of the bill remedied this while serving the bill’s stated purpose. However, this past week, the Senate amended and passed the original text of the bill, returning it to its pro-sexual harassment form. The bill will now return to the House to be voted on once again in its original form.

If this bill were truly about protecting homosexual men from hate crimes, then the bipartisan version passed by both the House Criminal Justice Committee and by voice vote in the NH House would have been acceptable, as it contains language prohibiting provocations based on sexual identity from being used as a defense in cases of manslaughter. However, the bill was amended to again contain language which protects and facilitates aggressive “sexual advances.” As a consequence those who would be most hurt if HB 315 passed in its present form would not be heterosexual men who killed homosexual men, as those pushing the bill would have you believe, but women who defended themselves from the predatory behavior of straight men. It is evident that the impetus behind the bill is to erode the safety and dignity of women, and to promote sexual harassment.

In light of this, Cornerstone strongly opposes HB 315 as amended by the Senate. Please call or email your representatives and urge them to vote against HB 315 as amended by the Senate.

The post Tell Your Reps to Vote Against HB 315—Pro-Sexual Harassment “Gay Panic” Bill appeared first on Granite Grok.

Former Democrat Senator Jeff Woodburn has had himself an odd few years. And not COVID. He was accused and convicted of being a bad boy, admitted to that, but then decided to get the State Supreme Court to overturn what he admitted to doing in pursuit of the truth.

Related: Did Jeff Woodburn or His Attorney Leak an Image (In his Domestic Violence Case) Under Protective Order?

Which truth?

In May 2021, former Democrat State Senator Jeff Woodburn bragged about how he was ‘believed’ by a Coos County Jury after they convicted him.

 

 

Sure. So why go to the NH State Supreme Court, and convince them to overturn those convictions based on a procedural error?

 

Writing for the court, Justice James Bassett said that “because the record contains some evidence supporting a rational finding that the defendant acted in self-defense, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on that theory of defense was unreasonable.”

Woodburn’s case will now be sent back to a lower court for a new trial, where he will be allowed to present his self-defense arguments.

 

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but to what did he admit of which he is no longer guilty?

 

In a statement, Woodburn said, The Supreme Court confirmed that I was unfairly treated and wrongfully convicted. As I said from the beginning more than 4 years ago, that this process would and will continue to reveal the truth, underlying politics, and injustice. I know what happened in this relationship, my mistakes and that I defended myself and never abused anyone.”

 

If the Judge erred in his trial, Woodburn deserves to have that corrected in a new proceeding, but he isn’t exonerated. The lower court has to re-hear the trial with Woodburn’s self-defense argument included in the proceedings. He is still alleged to have perpetrated acts of domestic violence, and he admitted to doing something for which a Jury convicted him.

Now he’s saying that’s not the case.

I’m a huge fan of the right to self-defense, but Woodburn (who has some problem with his) has admitted to anger issues and doing something wrong for which a jury convicted him. How does he explain admitting guilt with conviction and then claiming he is innocent and in pursuit of the truth?

Which truth, Jeff?

 

The post Woodburning appeared first on Granite Grok.