From the Women’s Defense League: On Friday, February 2nd, in the Legislative Office Building (located behind the state house), in rooms 202-204, there will be multiple gun control hearings held in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

This is where you can have the chance to testify against or for some of the bills being heard in the committee.

House Bill 1050 – AN ACT relative to establishing a voluntary waiver of the right to purchase a firearm.

OPPOSE – This bill allows a person to surrender their 2nd Amendment rights for whatever reason and be kept on a list so if they attempt to purchase a firearm after voluntarily being put on this list, they will be unable to. If a person attempts to practice their 2nd Amendment right while being on the list, they will be in violation. This bill is so poorly written, it doesn’t explain what that penalty is. The gun control crowd is using ‘suicide’ as an excuse. This bill doesn’t provide help for anyone considering suicide, nor does it actually stop anyone from committing suicide. This could open up a Pandora’s box to their draconian Red Flag law.

House Bill 1336 – AN ACT relative to employees’ firearms in locked vehicles.

OPPOSE – This bill mandates that employers have no say if their employees have firearms locked in their vehicles. While we agree that employees should be able to do this, it is a contract between the employer and the employee. The government shouldn’t be getting involved nor mandating what a private company does.

The next bill is of the utmost importance to OPPOSE. This bill has bi-partisan sponsorship based on an emotional reaction to the unarmed security guard (former police chief) who was murdered in 2023 at the state’s mental health facility.

House Bill 1711 – AN ACT authorizing the state to report mental health data for firearms background check purposes and providing for processes for confiscation of firearms following certain mental health-related court proceedings and for relief from mental health-related firearms disabilities.

OPPOSE – This bill makes it so those who are adjudicated violently mental ill to seek inpatient or out patient mental health care become prohibited persons for purchasing or possessing firearms, but it also requires their firearms be confiscated. Anyone who is adjudicated to receive in patient or out patient mental healthcare (for any reason) already becomes a prohibited person according to the ATF.

This is yet another bill that is discriminating against gun owners and doesn’t actually do anything to solve or help those with mental health issues. If someone is involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, they’ve already lost all their freedoms. If they are released, shouldn’t they only be released if they are mentally WELL? There should be no need to confiscate their firearms. If someone is released, and they are still violently mentally ill, why the hell are they being released?

This is another bill that is trying to solve a mental health issue with gun confiscation.

You can email or call the committee members below:

You can also sign in to either OPPOSE the legislation and provide written testimony if you so choose by clicking on the following link (an example is below): https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/remotetestimony/default.aspx

The post Multiple GUN CONTROL Hearings on February 2nd! appeared first on Granite Grok.

When you think of Oklahoma you think deep Red, very conservative, etc., etc., etc. …. right? Except Senator James Lankford who is supposed to be representing the people of Oklahoma actually is a tool for Mitch McConnell and the GOP-donor-class. McConnell used Lankford as the “face” of the amnesty-bill he collaborated with Biden and Schumer on … which essentially allows 2 MILLION illegals to jump the line and enter the country annually in return for a promise by Biden that he’ll keep illegal immigration at that limit.

The GOP in Oklahoma is having none of this B.S. See resolution below from the Oklahoma GOP condemning Lankford.

Breaking News: The Oklahoma GOP has passed a resolution saying they condemn James Lankford for his work on the bipartisan border security package. The letter stated, “Until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.” pic.twitter.com/pEqgevSLoH

— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) January 27, 2024

The post The GOP Despises Its Voters … Senator James Lankford Edition appeared first on Granite Grok.

The media are abuzz with billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that he is raising gourmet beef from wagyu cows on his Hawaiian “ranch,” feeding them beer and macadamia nuts. This contrasts sharply with fellow billionaire farming dabbler Bill Gates, who uses conventional chemical technologies and fancies himself the creator of a new synthetic factory meat.

Pundits are attacking Zuckerberg from both sides of the political aisle: The right calls him an elitist dining on fine foods; the left says he’s a climate destroyer. But what if he is, in fact, neither? Perhaps instead of insulting Farmer Mark, we should thank him for highlighting agricultural truths that are common knowledge for most farmers.

This is not to say Zuckerberg is not an elitist. Worth an estimated $130.6 billion, dining on beef fed better than most humans, and owning 1,500 acres on a small Hawaiian island, he displays the pinnacle of exclusivity. But even elitists need to eat, and he should perhaps be credited with undertaking the challenges of farming rather than just using hirelings – he claims he is involving his family in the actual dirty work, which would be the very best possible thing he could do as a father (billionaire or no).

It is a simple enough American liberty to raise one’s own food – anyone can raise a wagyu (if zoning and space permit), though they might be short on macadamia meal and cow-beer. Zuckerberg’s venture is a gift: It exposes the lies being leveled against cows and farmers alike, contrasting the Gates/World Economic Forum messaging about bovines and fake meat with the traditional farming methods that nurture soils with local agriculture. Zuckerberg’s farm is a poke in the eye to the likes of AOC and recently dethroned climate “envoy” John Kerry.

Bill Gates displays a very different billionaire’s farm. Gates did not buy property to try his hand at eating well; he bought up over two hundred thousand acres of US farmland across 18 states as an investment. Mr. Gates does not advocate organic farming, either. Instead, he embraces the unsustainable GMO technologies and accompanying chemical saturation of soils that causes erosion, water loss, and pollution. He invests billions in synthetic factory meat, which will be “cultured” from destructive monoculture crops like corn and soy, requiring saturation of millions of acres with synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and bee-killing pesticides.

Zuckerberg’s undertaking contrasts sharply with the Gates vision and has attracted the ire of Mark’s would-be liberal supporters, who attack him (and all farmers) for destroying the climate by raising cows. Multiple news outlets reported the words of Mitch Jones, deputy director at Food & Water Watch, who argued, “Raising cattle on water-hungry macadamia nuts and beer showcases the excesses of the wealthy. What we need is genuine agricultural reform, which addresses the inequalities in our food system and the reality of a warming climate.”

PETA representative Shalin Gala posted on social media, “Mark Zuckerberg announces he’s now ‘started raising cattle’ on his Hawaiian estate, feeding them beer, then slaughtering them. Mark, the Dark Ages are calling and want you back.”

The attacks on cows as “climate-damaging” have mainly gone unchallenged except by Irish and Dutch farmers. Whether or not it was his intention, Zuckerberg is now a vitally needed cow apologist. His farming methods are not necessarily climate-destroying. Well-managed water resources for both nuts and cows can be part of a soil-building, climate-healing agriculture.

Hawaii imports some 85-90% of its food. Raising produce locally, whether for himself or others, is how Zuckerberg can support the region’s economy and culture (agriculture) as well as the climate – his beef will not be grown in faraway nations and then shipped to his island. He is not employing synthetic fertilizers or herbicides (unless for the nuts or beer inputs). He is not raising his cows on delicate open ranges or crammed into a concentrated animal feed operation (CAFO).

Instead of praising him, climate warriors across the internet are zeroing in on a number of questionable statistics regarding the dangers of the Meta CEO’s farming methodology. Some cite Vice’s 2014 article that says cows produce 132 gallons of methane gas daily. Others that “cattle farming contributes 3.7 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions,” as Essa News reports in response to Zuckerberg’s farming practices. “Methane is a harmful greenhouse gas, causing about 85 times more warming than carbon dioxide,” the site adds.

This is the Big Cow Lie. The relative impact of methane versus carbon dioxide is an arbitrary measure, but even per the Environmental Protection Agency, methane is only 30 times more potent over 100 years than carbon dioxide, not 85. Notably, the EPA also calculates nitrous oxide is 273 times more potent over a century than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide is released in significant quantities by the synthetic fertilizers Bill Gates favors and that Mark Zuckerberg is avoiding by pasturing cows.

Pastured cows sequester both carbon and methane in the soils upon which they dine and defecate. Their manure rebuilds depleted soils and feeds the microbial soil life upon which plant and animal (and human) health depend. There is no technological replacement for cow manure: only soil- and climate-destroying industrial agricultural processes like those endorsed by Bill Gates and the WEF.

The Facebook founder should be praised for raising and eating his own cows. Sure, he’s an elitist, but the more he raises and learns about gentle bovines, the more he may also raise a voice to truly save the world – with cows, not by culling them from the food chain as rival faux farmer Bill Gates advocates. Growing his own food in Hawaii will educate Mark Zuckerberg and others, defend traditional farmers, and bring the discussion of cows back down to earth.

The post A Tale of Two Billionaire Farmers appeared first on Granite Grok.

In 2021 a woke school board decided their school logo – a Susquehannock warrior – was offensive and ignorant. They erased it and, with it, the visible history of the people it honored. Since then, the locals replaced those board members with seven new ones (there are nine members on the board).

I’m guessing this wasn’t the only straw on the proverbial camel’s back. Masks, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, emote learning – I didn’t look, but if you were a betting man or woman, if they were moved to erase the native history, then the rest was already the new normal.

As noted, the citizens did what not enough citizens do and made a few changes. According to the reporting five of the seven new members were elected last November. When the motion came to return the Susquehannock warrior to its place of honor, those seven voted yes – the other two voted no.

“It took a lot of bravery for people in York County to stand up and fight back against the agenda, like David against Goliath, and the difference they made is incredible,” Billeaudeaux said.

“The SYCSD school board stands as a role model and blueprint for other communities fighting for their Native names and imagery,” the Native American Guardians Association said in a statement after it presented its case last week at the board meeting.

“This movement was about erasing Native American culture and I wasn’t about to stand for it,” said Jennifer Henkel, who has three children in the district and serves on the board.

Not everyone was happy, but then those people are rarely happy, so why ruin everyone else’s fun?

And there’s a lesson to be learned. Keep finding and supporting candidates for school board and defense, and support those you get into office. Then, find some more until you have the majority. At that point, you then remain the superintendent and all the excessive numbers of administrators that they work at your leisure and will do as instructed, or you remove them and replace them.

Or, just remove them. In New England, we have SAUs, and there is no practical reason for them but to waste money and launder cultural Marxism into the curriculum. Anyone who wants to lower local property taxes who doesn’t address excess administrative overhead has another agenda.

They are also more likely to erase all evidence of recent native history if you still have any. I won’t revisit the reasoning here, but you are encouraged to do so in the comments.

The post Flip a School Board – Get Your Native American Warrior Back appeared first on Granite Grok.