There’s nothing wrong with the idea that men could champion women’s rights. There are plenty of men who have done more for women than women. You’d be crazier than a bag of cats to think otherwise. So where’s the crime in ‘UN Women UK’ naming a transwoman as its champion of Women’s rights in the not-so-United Kingdom.

 

According to UN Women UK, it supports the “empowerment of women equality globally within civil society, government, and the corporate sector.”

However, the group of charities [Fair Play for Women, Sex Matters, Transgender Trend and the Women’s Rights Network] wrote: “We wish to register our dismay and disappointment at the appointment of … Munroe Bergdorf as a UN Women UK champion. Munroe Bergdorf is unsuitable in every regard.

“Munroe Bergdorf’s well-publicised activism is not pro-women. This person has objected to women making references to our female bodies.”

 

Munroe Bergdorf, born a man, believes he is a woman and goes to great lengths to achieve the physical appearance, mannerisms, and social behaviors of a stereotypical woman. Becomes a model as a woman but objects to “references to female bodies.” Let’s assume that’s true, and these charities have the receipts. What, then, is the issue? What is it about women to which Bergdorf objects?

Maybe he’s just a bitch? It wouldn’t be the first time someone went to great lengths to emulate female beauty and became catty. If the stereotype is to be believed, it’s quite common.

I’m going with womb envy, but that’s no excuse. There are plenty of actual men and women who are envious of their own sex for any number of reasons. Human nature makes us want things we have no interest in doing the work to achieve. It is easier to covet the finished product and the focus needed to achieve it than to do the work ourselves.

Look at Munroe. No small amount of work went into turning that guy into the person we see today. They are obsessed with a traditional standard of female beauty. Having achieved it is as subjective as attraction itself, but there is no denying the goal. Munroe’s vision for women is classic. But this is the sort of thing feminists have been working to escape since Elizabeth Smith Miller started wearing pants. Maybe escape is the wrong word, but you take my meaning, I hope.

Munroe is, therefore, retrograde. Nothing progressive about that.

Munroe is also a man. Removing and adding bits does not change that. Beneath the facade of flesh is the skeleton of a man who, if unearthed thousands of years from now, would be identified as such, and there’s no cure for that. So, the only thing UN Women UK has done is deny an actual woman something to which they are entitled by birthright – a well-known concept the English have preserved into the 21st century by tolerating their monarchy.

There’s nothing wrong with that or awarding a man with a title like “champion of women’s rights” if they deserve it. Still, by all accounts, Bergdorf is a Potemkin woman – pretending for points and attention, even deception, and little else, and by choosing him, that’s what UN Women UK has become.

 

The post Transwoman Named UK Champion of Women’s Rights appeared first on Granite Grok.

Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse, the Department of Defense surprised me once again—this time involved General Austin in his role as Secretary of Defense. He checked himself into Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he was placed in the Intensive Care Unit for a week and never told anyone, while his staff lied about it.

What is troubling no one seemed to care.

It’s not like there is nothing going on in the world that would require his attention. Even his deputy was on vacation. He and his deputy took themselves out of the decision-making process. A great opportunity for our enemies to take advantage. This is truly bizarre behavior. For those of us who have served at senior levels within the military, we realize that something else is going on, that the normal operation of the chain of command appears not to be functioning, at least not as it should and certainly not in this case.

The foundation of the Armed Forces rests on a firm platform of Values and Morals. This is something instilled into every 2nd Lieutenant from the day they are commissioned—values like character, integrity, and honesty. You are also taught to find senior officers to serve as role models. Officers who, at the end of the day, will always do the right thing and will set an example regardless of the situation. Former Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall was my role model. Those who compromise these values normally are weeded out of the system.

We want to thank Dragon6 for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

So why mislead and lie about being hospitalized? The answer, I believe, is that General Austin did not view his Commander-in-Chief as being an active participant in the Chain of Command nor in the decision-making process at the highest level of our government. He may even feel insecure in his position as SecDef. Both thoughts are troubling for the nation. I can’t recall any similar example of this dysfunction at such a senior level. Did General Austin tell his staff that, if asked, inform people he was working from home, or did he or his staff decide that outright lying was the best option?

We are now faced with a failure in individual character as well as in personal integrity and honesty. How can we trust anything that the SecDef and his staff tell us in the future or the guidance they provide in any future conflict? This also points to a deeper dysfunction in the Department of Defense that needs to be corrected. Subordinate officers would have suffered severe consequences had they done the same (Lying). To deflect from his shortcomings, General Austin’s only comment was, “I should have been more transparent.” I can think of a lot of words “transparency” is not one of them. Time to take responsibility for placing the nation at risk and failing to set an example for those under you.

The post Unravelling of the Armed Forces – Part Two appeared first on Granite Grok.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “took a week off” without anyone noticing, so the White House is running damage control. How could the Secretary of Defense disappear for a week? Because, like the White House, he’s not running it?

It is sad and mildly amusing in a tragic way, but this response to that is just comical.

AP Headline: ‘White House orders Cabinet secretaries to notify when they can’t perform duties after Austin illness.’

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House chief of staff on Tuesday ordered Cabinet members or secretaries to notify his office if they ever can’t perform their duties, as the Biden administration, reeling from learning of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s surprise illness last week, mounts a policy review.

 

You don’t have to be paying attention to know that no one on Biden’s cabinet can perform their duties. At all. Ever. Unless by duties you mean the dereliction of – they’ve got that nailed. Pete Buttigieg is their leader and the poster child for expective level seat-warmers. Antony Blinkin at least has experience, not that he’s used it to defend the American People or fulfill his oath of office.

In other words, the White House should expect a lot of correspondence. Wait. No, they won’t. This cabal of misfits isn’t capable of knowing how bad they are, which means you, the people, will need to help them out. Pen a little note or send an email. Dear White House, in response to your request, I would like to inform you that [insert Secretary’s name] can’t perform their duties.

Sign it, Epstein’s mother. No, not that Epstein.

 

The post White House Says It Now Expects Cabinet to Notify Them If They “Can’t Do Their Job” – Are They Trying to Be Funny? appeared first on Granite Grok.

In today’s Townhall.com Tip Sheet, there is an article by Sarah Arnold entitled, “DNC Turns Its Back on the New Hampshire Democrat Party.” The crux of the article is a recent letter sent by the DNC to Ray Buckley, informing him that the Democrat NH Primary will not be recognized as a delegate selection event.

Quoting the article, quoting the letter, “The NHDP must take steps to educate the public that January 23rd is a non-binding presidential preference event and is meaningless and the NHDP and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.”

Steve has been writing and sharing on this topic in recent months, and the articles about the attempt to get the GOP to change the rules are worth re-reading for their takes.

• Why NH Democrats Should Be Proud to Lose Their Primary
• Democrats Switched to Independent to Screw with the Republican Primary
• Response and Clarification to Chairman Ager About Our Closed Primary Resolution

What this means in practical terms is that you will get more Democrat Leftists changing their registration so they can vote (a.k.a interfere) in the Republican primary. Most of those changes will be to “Undeclared” so they can easily vote in the State Democrat Primary in September. I have been warning about this for years, as have many others.

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

It’s time for NH Republicans to grow some vertebrae and ditch the open primary system that allows this interference – get rid of same-day party selection for Primaries and require voters to register with a party.

I believe NH law allows this to happen up to 14 days before an election – the resolution in front of the NH GOP was 30 days, but in my opinion, it really should be 90 days.

You will also be cheered by a large cadre of Checklist Supervisors who currently have to process all those party changes and change them back after every primary election. It was always a painful task when I served in that role, especially when there were hotly contested primaries driving large turnout.

 

 

The post Republicans in NH: Be Warned! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Trans rights activists assert that all of the major medical associations support what’s euphemistically labeled “Gender Affirming Care.” True, but these associations are ideologically corrupt, and none more so than the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) gender care policy was written by one man, Dr. Jason Rafferty. It reflects his ideological beliefs about gender identities, not medical science. This radical policy does away with the scientifically supported approach of watching waiting where children get counseling instead of chemicals, according to a lawsuit by a detransitioner against the AAP and Rafferty. Instead, the policy brushes aside research to establish an affirmative care model that calls for the immediate embrace of a child’s gender identity and advocates for social transitioning, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries.

Related: Detransitioner Sues American Academy of Pediatrics for Fraud and Conspiracy

The policy labels “watchful waiting” therapies that help children become comfortable with their own bodies “unsuccessful and deleterious” and “outdated;” however, the sources the policies cited don’t support that claim, as noted in a fact check by Dr. James Cantor, then the director of The Toronto Sexual Center. “These documents simply did not say what AAP claimed they did. In fact, the references that AAP cited as the basis of their policy instead outright contradicted that policy, repeatedly endorsing watchful waiting.”

The AAP’s claims about the alleged harms of “watchful waiting” have been repeated by Dartmouth Health Endocrinologist Francis Lim-Liberty, who accused clinicians who don’t immediately affirm children’s gender identity of “transphobia.”

The AAP’s unsubstantiated claims are the basis for activists and the medical industry’s insistence that children won’t outgrow their dysphoria and learn to be comfortable with their own bodies. “A person’s gender identity is not something that can be changed,” GLAD lobbyist Chris Erchull testified at the State House. “It is fixed at a very young age. That’s what the experts tell us.”

The AAP’s policy doesn’t recognize that depression, trauma, and autism might be at the root of a child’s gender confusion. It says that “if a mental health issue exists, it most often stems from stigma and negative experiences rather than being intrinsic to the child.”

The AAP has shut down debate about its controversial policy. They failed to respond to Dr. Cantor’s fact check by either reviewing their policy or writing a rebuttal. They also turned down two panels to discuss the dangers of the affirmative care model at their annual conference proposed by Finland’s leading gender expert, Riitakerttu Kaltiala. She said that the AAP is “actively hostile to the message my colleagues and I are urging.”

In 2021, the AAP’s directors refused a popular proposal to discuss the risks and benefits of the gender-affirmative care model at their annual conference. They also refused to allow the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine’s (SEGM) request to have an exhibition.

In August, the AAP announced that it would conduct a systematic review of the research, but AAP CEO Mark Del Monte announced its foregone conclusion: “He emphasizes that policy authors and AAP leadership are confident the principles presented in the original policy . . .  remain in the best interest of children.”

The extent of the AAP’s ideological corruption was on full display at their 2023 annual conference. Child-transing activist Ilana Sherer held a workshop on gender-affirming care where she encouraged her fellow pediatricians to discuss gender identity with prepubescent children. She also said that pediatricians should teach children to call vaginas an “innie” or “front hole” and call a penis “junk” or “strapless.” At a 2018 conference, Sherer recommended that pediatricians “rubber-stamp” minors’ requests for hormones.

We need to stop putting so much faith in physicians, according to detransitioner Katie Anderson:

We got here by treating doctors like high priests and the medical industry like a church. We gave doctors the right to try to carve people up to try to make them look like the opposite sex, but we’re not even honest enough to say that.

The post Rotting from the Head Down: The American Academy of Pediatrics Gender Policy appeared first on Granite Grok.

So I’ve been told that nut job gun hater Rep. Meuse was the one who assaulted Rep. Jonah Wheeler for his departure from the “enemy camp plantation” by voting for a ban on gender reassignment for minors. I’m hoping security camera footage is easily available to see for myself.

Keep in mind that Meuse is one of those “we must do something about GUN violence” loudmouths and has no problem with resorting to empty-handed physical violence when the situation suits him. He is not alone. Just do a search on Altschiller and the late Katherine Rogers, both former reps known to use the same modus operandi when they see fit.

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

But there’s very little that a non-sea-coaster can do about Meuse beyond condemning him in the public square. Let’s talk about someone else. Someone who achieved statewide notoriety in seeking Scanlan’s job last time around. Someone who has yet to weigh in on Thursday’s incident at the state house. That someone is Ms. Melanie Levesque, a certified hothead, according to Grokster Beth Scaer.

Related: Bi-Partisan NH House Vote Bans Transition Surgery for Minors 

She happened to be in office during two other events in history. One of them was then-Executive Councilor, extreme leftist, and governor wannabe Andru Volinsky, calling Ryan Terrell a token when he voted to reject the Damn Emperor’s nomination of him to the Board of Education in 2020. Also in the same year and in Boston, infamous local agitator Monica Cannon Grant made some very unkind epithets against Rayla Campbell for having a white husband. That did not receive as much Granite State media attention as Volinsky, but doesn’t it stand to reason that you-know-who would have a personal interest in condemning MCG’s slur?

And what about the mistreatment of Eddie Edwards, who has a right to due process just like the rest of us? I have yet to see any comment on record from you-know-who.

Accusations of racism dominate council meeting over nominations of Edwards, Terrell

Does anyone else recognize a pattern of “selective silence?”

 

The post The Pattern of Selective Silence appeared first on Granite Grok.

With all this talk about common sense manifesting as legislation and law, you’d think Vermont would have gotten a handle on its rising homicide rate. Last year, they had 25, unprecedented for that tiny state in our big modern era, but a few more progressive laws later, and it’s up to 27 in 2023.

 

Vermont’s homicide rate last year continued an upward trajectory, topping numbers not seen in nearly three decades. While authorities are still trying to solve several open cases, they’re also trying to understand what’s behind the recent surge.

Vermont State Police say for the second straight year, homicide numbers topped 20.

“We’re prone to have some violence like all states do, but in a small state with a low population, it certainly has a greater effect on people when they hear about it,” said VSP Maj. Dan Trudeau.

2023 saw 24 homicide investigations involving a total of 27 deaths. The violence took place across across the state, from Brattleboro to the Northeast Kingdom.

Over the last seven years, the state’s homicide numbers ranged from 17 in 2017 to as low as 11 the following year. Since then, they have been on the rise. “We’ve typically been in the low teens to mid-teens, maybe for an annual sometimes lower than that. It’s certainly concerning,” Trudeau said.

Of the 27 homicides, more than half involved the use of a gun. And of the cases investigated by state police, seven are known to be drug-related, involving both suspects and victims from out of state.

 

I’m not sure what weapons were involved in the “other half” of the homicides, but rest assured, the brilliant minds doing business as the Vermont legislature will focus on disarming law-abiding gun owners to address this continued surge in criminal violence.

The Media could also use some retraining in the art of Democrat run decline. What might the readers think if you were to write that nearly half the homicides involved a weapon other than a firearm?

Related: Night Cap: Amid Rising Homicides, Vermont Says Its Red Flag Law is Model for the Nation

You still get the dig on guns, but it almost sounds like there was a rise in murders resulting from attackers who might have been stopped or deterred by the presence of a firearm. I admit I am stretching the potential and giving too much credit to the sort of people who pay attention to these outlets, but evidence and history suggest both the problem and the remedy.

Rising homicides will not stop no matter how many common-sense gun laws you pass. It’s not firearms. It is the culture. One-party Democrat rule results in higher taxes, declining quality of life and services, rising crime, misery, and more murder. Look anywhere they have had decades of uninterrupted rule. San Francisco, LA, Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, NYC, the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Detroit, or Memphis.

Vermont’s future is some version of that with a twist. The cities will lead the decline, which will spill into rural areas, and in a state as small as Vermont, there aren’t too many places to hide from it, especially after they take your guns away.

Vermonters must internalize the reality of prolonged Democrat decline and grasp its purpose. You can’t live with it or them. They will not leave you alone, nor will the effects of their policies. You have to try to take your state and local government back. Yes, that will make you a target, but better a target of left-wing hate than the rising violence that perpetuates in their wake.

 

The post Vermont Surpasses 2022, With 27 Homicides in 2023 appeared first on Granite Grok.

We all remember the most famous, albeit infamous, speech of Biden’s Presidency in front of an eerie red backdrop, flanked by two marines in dress blues. He told America we were on the brink of disaster. Not a natural disaster, attack from a foreign power, or millions of illegals crossing our Border.

No, what Biden was warning Americans about were MAGA Republicans led by the evil Democracy destroying Donald Trump. This speech was delivered just before the 2022 Midterms and must have worked. A dreadful Blood Red Speech avoided the predicted Red Wave. Will it work in 2024 to put Joe Biden in the White House for four more years?

I genuinely hope not.

As much as Biden talks about the potential damage from another Trump Presidency, we have the reality of the damage done by a Biden Presidency. When a President usually kicks off his re-election campaign, it is with a recap of his accomplishments and a positive vision of the future. We heard neither from Joe Biden on Friday. Friday has always been the black hole for news, and that is when politicians announce things they want to slide under the radar. So why did Biden choose a Friday for his kick-off? Probably hoping it would evade radar because it was a dark, dreary, and divisive speech intended to instill fear rather than hope in voters’ minds.

Biden could not tout his accomplishments on the national or international fronts. The Administration has finally abandoned Bidenomics as the term did not work, nor have his economic policies. We still have high inflation rates destroying household budgets, along with high interest rates that are destroying the American Dream of home ownership. He cannot talk about the Southern Border, where four million illegals are invading our country yearly. We no longer have a sovereign America. He cannot speak about Fentanyl, which is still killing 100,000 young Americans every year.

He cannot talk about a safer world when we still have images of a failed evacuation of Afghanistan, the Middle East at war, and a crisis in Ukraine that sees no end. We are losing ground to China as Iran and North Korea get closer to Nuclear arms. We have ended our energy independence, which makes us weaker internationally.

Biden has stressed diversity over competence in his Administration, and this WOKE philosophy has permeated business and education to the demise of both. There is nothing Joe Biden can point to in his first term, nor tell us how his second will be any better. His message is not hope but fear, and through a weak delivery, alternating from whisper to raised voice, he misses the mark. He can threaten the loss of Democracy from a Trump term, but he has shown us how our liberties have suffered under Joe Biden.

Biden finished his speech and turned to his right, looking dazed and confused. Doctor Jill hurried to his rescue, taking Joe by the hand and guiding him from the stage. This vision is not what America thinks about when we look at our President. Joe Biden’s best days, if there were any, are in the rearview mirror, and the most humane thing Americans can do is send Joe Biden off to retirement. If Jill doesn’t face the obvious with her husband, then we, the voters, will do it for her.

The post Biden “Campaign” Launch Sets Tone – Fear! appeared first on Granite Grok.

There are a lot of reasons why Claudine Gay should never have been running Harvard, but her testimony before Congress isn’t one of them. I went back and watched as much of the hearing as I could stomach, and what I heard all three university presidents saying was: Anti-semitism is bad, but speech is different from action.

I guess I shouldn’t be a university president either because I agree: Anti-semitism is bad, and speech is different from action.

I’m on board with Justice Hugo Black’s definition of freedom of speech, which I think is the best ever offered:

Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.

And I’m on board with John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech, which I also think is the best ever offered:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

I was hoping that one of the university presidents would ask Elise Stefanik to point to the particular passage in the Harvard, Penn, or MIT code of conduct that she thinks forbids someone from saying something because someone else finds it hurtful, hateful, horrible, or heinous.

In defense of the idea of making people simply shut up about certain subjects, I frequently hear the old and inaccurate claim that ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.’

In fact, you can do that, and we know that you can because Penn Jillette does it during every Penn & Teller show. It’s not a problem because no one does anything about it. The audience doesn’t get up and stampede out of the theater.

You can yell it, even if there’s no fire, so long as nothing bad happens as a result. There’s no criminal punishment for the speech itself. If significant damage occurs as a result, there may be civil liability. But that’s not a free speech issue. That’s a tort issue.

But if you think there are some ideas that are just too awful to allow people to express them, here’s a question you might ask yourself:

How many times would you have to hear someone call for the eradication of a nation… or for any other action that you currently find reprehensible… before you would actually engage in it?

There’s no number high enough, is there? People could speak to you all day about the most heinous ideas, but in the end, it’s just air being pushed around (or marks being made on paper).

So speech isn’t really the problem, is it?

Calling for something is speech, and being able to call for it without being punished is free speech. In contrast, actually doing the thing is not speech, free or otherwise. We lose sight of that at our peril.

And the way we lose sight of it is for individuals to think:  Sure, I can resist bad ideas, but other people are too stupid to.

Calling for the eradication of Israel is speech. Parachuting into a music festival in Israel and killing hundreds of people is not speech. Launching rockets into downtown Tel Aviv is not speech. Detonating a suicide bomb on a bus in Jerusalem is not speech.

Is this not clear?

If you think someone is wrong, the proper response is to explain why he’s wrong, not to silence him.

Once we decide that ‘calling for the eradication of a nation’ is out of bounds, it’s a short step to saying that ‘calling for the elimination of our democracy’ should be out of bounds, and for many people, that’s the same as supporting Donald Trump.

Is this really a road we want to go down? I agree with Black and Mill that it is not.

Speech is speech and not action. Action is action and not speech. Blurring the line between the two is a ‘cure’ that is orders of magnitude worse, in the long run, than any ‘disease’ that it might be thought to cure in the short run.

Not too long ago someone was convicted and imprisoned for telling someone else to kill himself.  It’s worth asking yourself who you would say was responsible there? The person who just said some words? Who expressed an opinion? Or the person who decided to end his own life and then actually ended it?

If a person is so impressionable that simply being told to do something will override his critical faculties about whether to actually do that thing, perhaps that person should be a ward of the state, and kept 24/7 in an environment where what he sees and hears is carefully and completely controlled. (And he certainly shouldn’t be allowed to vote.)

Logically, the idea that some thoughts are too dangerous to be expressed by anyone because they may have the wrong effect on someone is identical to the idea that guns are too dangerous to be owned by anyone because someone might misuse them.

They’re both examples of Mark Twain’s characterization of censorship as telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.

Recall that the heart of the Bruen decision was that we should afford the Second Amendment the same levels of respect and deference that we accord the First Amendment.

You like gun control? Pushing for speech control is exactly how you get more of it.

 

The post Night Cap: You Like Gun Control? Push for Speech Control. appeared first on Granite Grok.

Senator Jeannie … or, perhaps, her “staff” … went on an X (Twitter) harangue about the January 6th “insurrection.” As part of the harangue, she misquoted Ben Franklin, substituting “democracy” for “republic” in the famous admonition, “a republic if you can keep it.” Of course, neither Jeannie nor her staff could even tell you what the difference between a democracy and a republic is, so they have no idea of their gaffe.

Same for the “reporters” and “journalists” who bring us the “news” in New Hampshire … none of them could tell you what the difference between a democracy and a republic is either. And moreover, their role as they see it is to maintain Jeannie and her ilk in power, so even if they understood the gaffe, they would never mention it.

 

 

And, by the way, this “insurrection” appears to have been led by at least 200 FBI “assets”:

 

Ep. 61 This the smartest, best informed account of what actually happened on January 6th. pic.twitter.com/U9yCWRVJSd

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 6, 2024

 

The post Is Senator Jeannie That Ignorant … Or Is It The Democrat-Youth Running Her X (Twitter)? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The United States team won gold at the World Junior Hockey Championships in Sweden. The lads were very excited, smiling and singing as the national anthem played in honor of their victory. If you watched it on ESPN you’d have never known they were proud to be American.

 

 

These photos from @usahockey’s #WorldJuniors gold medal win are unbelievable pic.twitter.com/0Ohgmw5Sua

— B/R Open Ice (@BR_OpenIce) January 7, 2024

 

Proud enough to smile and sing.

 

No kneeling, no purple hair, no selfish political displays, just world champs honoring their flag https://t.co/HwmVodPQRL

— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) January 7, 2024

No kneeling, no purple hair, and no selfish political displays, which must be why ESPN chose not to air it. It might also be the reason why so many Americans won’t watch ESPN.

 

 

 

The post ESPN Cuts Away to Protect You From Young Patriotic American Athletes Proudly Singing the National Anthem appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Democrat National Committee (DNC) is pissed at New Hampshire Democrats. The locals have been acting like votes Democrats cast on our Jan 23rd primary will mean something. The DNC has demanded they stop and the manner in which they’ve done that violates the state’s voter suppression law.

 

 

 

Here is the DNC’s Letter to the New Hampshire State Democrat Party.

Plenty of Dems on the NH Primary Ballot

There will be about 20 Democrats on the Jan 23rd primary ballot, but no Joe Biden, and as far as the DNC is concerned, none of this counts. It’s not sanctioned and, from their perspective, is meaningless. But by demanding this be advertised, they’ve tripped over New Hampshire State law.

 

 

This is hilarious because the DNC is right. As a private corporation, it can set its own rules and schedules and define the terms of engagement. The Democrat “primary” in New Hampshire is – to them – meaningless. Nothing about the outcome will have any effect on how the DNC pretends to practice Democracy in pursuit of its nominee.

The DNC has complete control over what their primary means, but they cannot tell voters not to show up.

But the NH AG is also right. This is still a real election with real candidates, and you cannot actively insist voters not participate. The DNC is breaking the law and demanded that the the State Party do the same.

 

 

The AG is watching. If the DNC or NHDP do anything that looks like vote suppression, they’ll bring the full weight of the state to bear to prevent election meddling and voter suppression. Whatever that means, which typically isn’t much, but in this instance, I think the AG would be looking to draw blood (as in large fines).

 

Here’s the full letter from the AG demanding the DNC cease and desist.

NH AG Letter to NDC voter suppression

The post Breaking: Attorney General Tells Democrat National Committee to Stop Violating NH Election Law! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Let’s talk about an important piece of legislation coming up in committee this week. It is House Resolution 25, scheduled for a public hearing in Legislative Administration on Wednesday, January 10, at 10 am, in the Legislative Office Building, Room 301-303. Here is a cliff notes version.

The New Hampshire Constitution is a legal contract called a Trust Indenture.

John Locke is one of the founding fathers of law who heavily influenced the framers of our Constitutions. He wrote in “Two Treatise of Government,” Chapter 15 Section 171, “Secondly, political power is that power which every man, having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property…”

New Hampshire Supreme Court, in the case of Wooster v Plymouth, stated, “The second [part of NH Constitution] is, in general, a grant of powers, made by the people to ‘magistrates and officers of government, who are declared (in Part 1 art. 8) to be the grantors’ agents.”

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

In The New Hampshire Constitution, Article 84 Oath of Office says, “….accepting the trust…” While neighboring Vermont says in their Constitution Article 6, “That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”

So, from the above writings, we see the intent of the framers was for the Constitutions to be Trust Instruments. These are contracts consisting of an agreement between parties called Grantors, who are the Beneficiaries, and Grantees, who are the Trustees. They have a fiduciary duty to fulfill contractual obligations that are binding in a legal way, meaning the Grantors/Beneficiaries can prosecute Trustees for Breach of Trust.

Trust Instruments are built on fundamental principles, like this Maxim of Law, which states: That which is granted or reserved in a certain specified form must be taken as it is granted, and will not be permitted to be made the subject of any adjustment or compensation on the part of the grantee.

Ex. parte Miller. 2 Hill (NY) 423; Bacon, Max. 26, reg.4.

The above Maxim reinforces the concept that only what is expressly written is granted authority in Part 2 Form of Government, and what is not expressly written is forbidden by way of omission. For example, let’s say I have a Trust Fund. Then let’s say that I create a Trustee position in that Fund, which comes with a written description of the duties of the position. The written duties are: “Trustee will identify cash flowing multi-family real estate properties, and acquire them with funds from the trust, and in the name of the Trust.”

Let’s say I offer you, the reader, the position as Trustee in my Trust Indenture and offer to compensate you $2000.00 for each multi-family you acquire. You agree to be my Trustee, swear oath, and away we go. A month later, we meet for coffee, and you roll up in a Ferrari. I say, “Wow, sweet ride, where did you get the money for that?” You reply, “I bought it with funds from the trust.” I say, “Ummm, where in the Trust Indenture was it written that you could use funds to purchase a car for yourself?” You reply back to me, “Well, it’s not written that I can’t use funds to buy a car for myself.” I think you can see that buying the Ferrari is a Breach of Trust and that a Court will not be siding with you.

The same is true of our state constitution. The express written terms of NH Constitution Part 2 Article 32, for instance, nowhere contain any written grant to add in voting machines. The addition of machines, by any other method than the method the constitution itself prescribes in Part 2 Article 100, is a Breach of Trust. House Resolution 25, if passed, will return us to the Constitutional Provisions as they were before our elections process was altered by way of Legislative Enactment rather than by way of proposing a Constitutional Amendment to The People, requiring a ⅔ majority at the Biennial Elections to pass.

If you care about your power as one of the people under New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Articles 8, 32, and 38, about the oath of office that all legislators take, and about how we are your contractually obligated Trustees, your support at this hearing is encouraged.

You can read HR25 here. Click on the Bill Version as Introduced on the left side of your screen.

You can submit online testimony here.

Representative Nikki McCarter Belknap 8

The post Restore Trust … in Elections appeared first on Granite Grok.

A lot of things happened as a result of the pandemic. The most critical thing in my mind was how the world was divided. Not by race, religion, age, sex, occupation, or party registration – despite many demographics working to divide us into tribal groups. There was a rise in global awareness of us versus them.

Every sort of person across the world confronted a planet-wide campaign of mass propaganda and coercion. This unified attack on bodily integrity, individualism, and choice, driven entirely by fear and mob tactics – though many were sugar-coated as empathy-entertainment – was almost impossible to ignore. The world was segregated into two classes without regard to any other feature of our lives.

One side demanded blind compliance; the other asked questions and defended the right to ask. The more the vaccine mandate side pushed, the more questions the other side wanted answered. Anyone who dared to respond outside the approved context was labeled a denier and their thoughts and words as misinformation.

Amidst this, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) grew a monster called The Trusted News Initiative (TNI). Its publicly stated goal is to control the news. To control what you see and, therefore, say and think. To define the truth you are permitted to believe while shushing conversations that wander outside their proscribed lines.

 

TNI members work together to build audience trust and to find solutions to tackle challenges of disinformation. By including media organisations and social media platforms, it is the only forum in the world of its kind designed to take on disinformation in real time

 

By “to take on” through censorship and cancel culture while you promote the agreed upon ‘voice’ through a global echo chamber regardless of the truth.

Much of the pandemic ‘science’ this global media cartel advocated has been debunked. The people asking questions were right; those who labeled them deniers or peddlers of misinformation were wrong. But still, they soldier on. In true New Speak (Orwell’s newspeak) fashion, they continue to coordinate across media (mainstream and social) to brute force the preferred language of the globalists into the mouths and minds of everyone.

Its advocates ape the agreed-upon authoritative messaging as its political arms legislate the new media dissidents and their audience out of business. And it is working. Only America has a First Amendment to protect free speech to which the balance of the Western World plays lip service. At the same time, the worst characteristics of Democracy limit the idea of open political expression and debate. The mob rule of the 51% seems more likely to side with them than us.

In its most basic form, Democracy is the right to say no. Yes, you won the election, but no, you cannot rob me of my right to disagree or speak my mind. But, those who dare to question continue to be suppressed by those who share the same messaging as the Globalist industrial complex – that cabal of elites, governments, and corporatists who are the ‘Them” in the Us vs. Them.

The not-so-much politically correct as politically correcting.

Without regard to skin color, faith, occupation, income, sex, gender, age, or any other characteristic, we must rally to defend the human right to be wrong so that we prevent them from securing a monopoly on deciding what is right. How do we do that? Keep asking questions. Challenge the political dogma and its orthodoxy. Refuse to allow your speech to be corralled or compelled. Defend free speech and expression. And yes, support independent media – but not just by donating, reading, or sharing. Put pressure on mainstream or corporate media, especially at the local level, to answer for their disinterest in the independent-minded dissident view.

Media mistrust is at an all-time high, but local media still enjoys some measure of credibility. Does it deserve it? Are they just local versions of the politically correcting ‘Them,’ or do they wander off the plantations defined by groups like TNI? Do they or have they reported the dissenting side? Through most of COVID, they did not, even after months of credible challenges that were correct.

So, what makes you think they’re not doing the same thing with the rest of the news, and are you prepared to call them out on it?

We are, and we’d love your help.

 

The post Information Fascism: Politically Correct Means “Politically Corrected” appeared first on Granite Grok.