Wednesday • March 4 • 2026
Vol.XVIII • No.X
Manchester, N.H.
Is there such a thing as one single source of truth? Is it the government, social media platforms, TV, radio, a book, or a political party? Probably not. All of these things come from people, and we all make mistakes. Nobody is right all of the time about everything.
Our government and the social media platforms say they want to protect us from misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. Do you believe them? Is that what they’re doing? Or are they just censoring viewpoints they don’t like for the power and control they can acquire? Let’s think about it.
They censored evidence the covid virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China. We now know that’s true. Even China doesn’t dispute it. They censored claims the vaccines didn’t prevent infection and that masking didn’t stop transmission. We know they got it wrong there too. They censored ideas about natural immunity. They censored opinions about election irregularities. They censored reports about a laptop belonging to a presidential candidate’s son. They censored evidence questioning the extent of global warming and its consequences. The list goes on and on.
The point is we need to take what we see, hear, and read with a grain of salt. We should probably look at the qualifications of the author. We should probably pay attention to their record of being right or wrong, as the case may be. The quality of our judgment depends on our sources and our ability to get a sufficient variety of sources to be able to hear dissenting positions.
A pretty good way to sift through a variety of positions and information we acquire is to discriminate. That is, to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of the information we have accumulated. We should distinguish by discerning or exposing differences. Only then can we recognize or identify as separate and distinct, the positions of the various sources. Discrimination, you see, is a good and necessary thing… but I digress.
A censored opinion may often be called “misinformation” yet turned out to be true. We know our government and its Big Tech allies even suppressed information they knew was true. They colluded in their efforts to do so. Things such as the adverse effects of the Covid vaccines. That censorship blinded some Americans to the risk of the vaccines, which led to lethal outcomes. Doubt it? Look up the case of Ernest Ramirez and his 16-year-old son, Facebook, and the White House.
When the government and the social media platforms anoint themselves the arbiters of truth, they suppress “misinformation.” But if anything can be learned from the Covid debacle, it is that no one; not a prime minister, a president, not Anthony Fauci, not the White House… No one has a monopoly on that essential commodity… truth.
The government and the dominant media platforms were wrong about the vaccines, medications, masks, ventilators, business lockdowns, school lockdowns, the virus’s origins, and the Hunter Biden laptop. Yet they say we should rely on them to identify “misinformation,” really?
We shouldn’t. There is only one way to arrive at the truth. The way we do so is through open, uncensored discussion and debate. Nothing is more deadly to the truth than centralized censorship. Centralized censorship is precisely what the government and the media platforms are imposing on us. It is absolute tyranny. The government should never have the power to determine what is true, what is false, and what is an error, misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation.
That role cannot be left to the social media platforms. They are as centralized and maybe more centralized than the federal government. We have to grasp that, being dependent on the government means you can be made to do its bidding. This was made clear by the Twitter files released by Elon Musk. Look it up if you don’t understand the reference.
Censorship is mind control. That’s why governments want it… for the control and the power it brings. That is exactly why they shouldn’t have it. Think about how this plays out in the political sphere. Speech is how individuals learn about political candidates. It is how political opinions are formed. Without free speech, there can be no free elections.
When the government controls election speech, it controls elections. When the government controls elections, you no longer live in a democracy or a representative republic. Too many Americans think free speech is something only for them, not their political opponents. Their view is that censorship is desirable, and the First Amendment is just a quaint 18th-century artifact.
Well, no. The point of freedom of speech is that all of us should be free to explore all sorts of ideas. That is the only way we can test claims of truth for error. The ability to do those tests for ourselves is critical. None of us is infallible. None of us has all of the truth. We depend on others to correct our mistakes and teach us what we don’t know.
Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to speak up for freedom of speech. We must stand, not just for ourselves, but for everyone else, most especially those with whom we disagree. No one has a monopoly on truth, and equally as important, we all have a right to be wrong and be heard. That’s how we learn and get better. That’s why we need open, uncensored discussion and debate.
The forces arrayed against free speech are formidable. Their censorship or attempts at censorship will be their everlasting shame. Your defense of freedom of speech will be to your everlasting credit. It may be the most important thing you ever do.
The risk of one-party rule, if free speech is captured, is severe. Success in the implementation of government censorship will irreparably damage our country and the possibility of freedom for people everywhere.
The post Night Cap: What’s Wrong with Censorship? appeared first on Granite Grok.
We have dueling COVID updates from last week. The Centers for Democrat Control (CDC) continues to behave like a political entity instead of a Public Health Concern. On the one hand, it has been decided that COVID is officially like any other seasonal flu. Five-day quarantine is no longer advised.
My first reaction to this was, “Someone is still making people quarantine for five days if they test positive for COVID”? Based on the institutional wealth-transfer machine of in-home diagnostics, called the PCR test. Unlike the CDC, the PCR was never meant to do what it is being asked to do. The CDC, at least in some form, one day now long past, existed to further public health—no more.
But they’ve given a Divine Nod to its local public health missionaries at the state and local level to treat COVID like any other flu. Here’s the updated guidance and a warning. Put down whatever you are drinking. There’s a good bit of self-contradicting stupidity, and we wouldn’t want you blowing liquids through your nasal passages.
Here are a few examples.
Based on competing research by increasingly more competent and trustworthy sources, none of these three things is true. CDC is being CDC, which leads hand in glove to the next point and our headline.
“Today’s recommendation allows older adults to receive an additional dose of this season’s COVID-19 vaccine to provide added protection,” said CDC Director Mandy Cohen. “Most COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations last year were among people 65 years and older. An additional vaccine dose can provide added protection that may have decreased over time for those at highest risk.”
“Today’s recommendation allows older adults to receive an additional dose of this season’s COVID-19 vaccine to provide added protection,” said CDC Director Mandy Cohen. “Most COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations last year were among people 65 years and older. An additional vaccine dose can provide added protection that may have decreased over time for those at highest risk.”
According to The Dossier, that’s dose number 9.
The ninth shot, which is currently only recommended for seniors but will soon be authorized for all ages, is considered a booster that targets the Eris variant, or EG.5.
But what Pfizer and Moderna don’t want you to find out is that the Eris variant no longer exists.
Ordinary flu, which the CDC has declared COVID to now be, is already a moving target for the vaccine to Beach Front Property pipeline. Medicine makers have been guessing all along and profiting from the false sense of security created by the systemic peddling of random chemical injections to protect people who don’t need it from the flu. Or, as in this case, from a flu they will never catch.
Booster number nine is currently in limited release, but Big Pharma Exec property taxes don’t pay themselves. A rollout to a broader audience is expected, which will also help Big Med keep the Public Health Industrial Complex and its bureaucratic enables on a string.
Some number of fully fear-mongered and, as yet, uninjured jab enthusiasts will be waiting to rush to the nearest CVS or Walgreens for their “free” updated lipid nanoparticle fix.
JN.1 is the hot blonde, by the way, dominating the varient party scene the way Taylor Swift sucks up camera time at Chiefs games. And much like Taylor’s boyfriends, there will be a new one some day soon. Damaged relationship lyrics are a lot like Pfizer checks to the media and Public Health Industrial Complex “Researchers.” There needs to be a catalyst. They don’t just write themselves.
The post CDC Approves Updated Booster for a COVID Variant That No Longer Exists appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Eleven conferences — the Atlantic 10, Big East, Big South, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, Mid-Eastern Athletic, Pac-12, WAC, Southeastern and West Coast — recently told ESPN that a home school with a post-game celebratory court storm could be subject to a fine under certain circumstances. Some have precise penalties, while others have general language regarding disciplinary measures and their applicability.” – ESPN.com
I love watching fans storm a court or swarm a field after a big win. The primal, elemental, and spontaneous outpouring of joyous humanity celebrating a special sports triumph always moves me. So, do the proposed restrictions infringe on 1st Amendment provisions or the right to assemble? WWBKD? (What would Bobby Knight do?)
Watch the end of the movie hoop classic “Hoosiers” when the Hickory High fans storm the court to embrace their heroes. Or YouTube the old Boston Garden after “Havlicek stole the ball!” Or Fenway Park on that magical October 1, 1967, after Rico Petrocelli caught a popup setting up the BoSox for their first World Series in decades. Six-foot-6 pitcher Jim Lonborg was swept away to centerfield and a mad mosh-pit of delirium.
Primal. Elemental. Joyous.
There are, of course, dangers when waves of humanity are unleashed, overpowering 70-year-old ushers and the lone security cop. Mob mentalities take effect. Havlicek was battered and bruised by fans after he stole the ball. He called them “ruffians.” Lonborg’s uniform was ripped to shreds. I’m sure that today, in various New England locales, grandfathers share pieces of cloth with their progeny, explaining, “This is what Jim Lonborg wore when he pitched the Sox to the pennant in 1967.”
Seriously.
And when those gridiron goalposts come down, they can injure even the most hard-headed football fan.
Hence, the proposals for court storm policies.
“This is why we can’t have nice things, people!”
These outpourings, these court storms, aren’t entirely spontaneous. When the Celtics beat the Lakers at the Garden in 1984 for the NBA title, fans surrounded the court for a while before the final buzzer, waiting to pounce.
On the college level, one can be sure that ne’er-do-wells have courtstorm strategies that involve not hoisting a hoopster but hugging a cheerleader. Truth.
But for the most part, the joyous storms and swarms are unscripted. Who knew Havlicek was going to steal the ball?
Next month marks the 50th anniversary of Hank Aaron breaking Babe Ruth’s career home run mark. Film/video of that milestone moment in Atlanta will be shown everywhere. And accompanying Aaron on his historic round trip, you’ll see Britt Gaston and Cliff Courtenay. The two Brave fans were only 17 when they ran onto the field from the first-base stands and caught up with Aaron. Now Britt and Cliff are immortal. They even made this column five decades later.
Court storms and field swarms are de rigueur everywhere at countless high school championship events. Players, parents, and peers no doubt dream of that ultimate title moment marked by Gatorade showers and heroes hoisted in celebration.
Like so many others, I also dreamed of such a moment. But most of us never taste that sweet championship nectar.
My high school senior year saw me and my Groveton High School Purple Eagle basketball teammates in a state tournament semifinal game at Plymouth State, trying for a spot in the title tilt. Half the gym was purple as busloads of fans came down from the North Country. Sadly, we fell way behind, 27-12.
Still, in the second half, we chipped away at the lead, and the purple-clad folks took heart. Closer and closer we came and louder and louder were the GHS fans. I remember scoring in the last minute to cut the lead to 47-46 as the gym exploded. A dam was about to break to release a purple flood onto the floor.
But we ran out of time. The white-clad players enjoyed a court storm as the purple rain fell not.
I stood watching the other team get swarmed while a lone figure hurried to me from the purple side—tears streaming down her face. Her back to the celebration, my girlfriend offered a very public embrace. I’ll always remember that.
So, most athletes never experience a court storm. But sometimes, kids offer opportunities for parents to vicariously experience “swarm joy” when offspring win titles denied to their dads and moms. When my daughter’s Concord High School softball team won a state championship, I (thankfully) did not run out and leap onto the growing pile of players celebrating a title. But that was also, in a way, my storm/swarm moment as well.
And, upon further review, perhaps the lonely gesture of that teary hug offered to a losing basketball player is perhaps of equal—if not more—value than a leap into that fleeting mosh pit of sports joy experienced by that happy few band of brothers (or sisters) fortunate enough to grab sports’ ever-so-elusive brass rings.
The post “Storming the Court” – And the First Amendment appeared first on Granite Grok.
Today during a hearing of House Special Committee on the Division for Children, Youth and Families (regarding DCYF), something interesting and (perhaps) wonderful occurred. A recommendation was made to ask those testifying to swear they were telling the truth (under penalty of perjury), and a Democrat objected to it.
To borrow from RebuildNH, who, in all fairness, beat me to the punch breaking this news (on Telegram),
This morning, the House Special Committee on DCYF, chaired by Rep. Leah Cushman, required every person testifying to take an oath before giving their testimony. This is unusual for House committees, but it is in statute and is therefore within the rights of the People’s representatives to do so. With the level of outright lying we’ve seen on other committees (ahem, executive departments testifying in front of the HHS committee), thanks should go to the Republican representatives insisting on truthfulness. On the other hand, Democrat members objected to this move, calling a requirement that people testifying tell the truth “insulting.”
In this excerpt, Rep. Sandra Panek makes the suggestion, citing the relevant state statute at 4 minutes (in the video below.
Pursuant to RSA 1414, which states that any Senator or Representative, while acting as a member of the committee, of the legislature, may admininster an oath to any person who may be examined before such a committee. I would like to require an oath of the witness and all witnesses testifying before this committee. The testimony we are taking is concerning a very serious subject matter, and we must ensure truthfulness. There have been various committees, both ad hoc and standing that have heard lots of testimony, relative to family law matters, and in many cases can go on and on, and take up lots of precious time. And sometimes it was later found out that the testimony was infactual. What we want to do is establish that this process is eliciting factual information so we can make the most informed decisions, based on the testimoney we received.
Democrat Rep. Lucy Webber immediately objects.
It’s something that we normally do not do. This is not a tribunal. This is a fact-finding mission and it seems to me that to require an oath is way outside of our normal procedure. And as one who assumes people standing in front of us are going to be truthful, I think it’s, it’s, frankly kind of insulting to our witnesses but I also .. the point of this commission .. committee, is to discover issues with DCYF, it is not to prepare the ground for some kind (of) future prosecution. And so I think that the administration of an oath is both unnecessary and insulting and I would really prefer to get a ruling form the speaker’s office as to whether it is an appropriate thing for us to be doing because I’ve literally in 18 years never seen it.
The Committe Chair (Rep. Leah Cushman) thanks Rep Webber for her input, but decides to require the oath, after which there is some additional remarks. I’ve excerpted the exchange below. The Full committee hearing can be viewed here. My question to the readers is this. Is it time to change the practice of assuming those testifying before any legislative committee are telling the truth (to the best of their knowledge) and asking them to swear an oath affirming that what they have to say is the truth under penalty of perjury?
Or maybe (just) public officials and (in particular) members of the executive branch, as observed in the pull quote from Rebuild at the beginning of this piece?
I’m sure you have thoughts. Here is the excerpt 4 min in to about 7 min. (The debate on this matter continues up to just past the 12-minute mark in the full version before anyone is sworn in).
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");
Rumble("play", {"video":"v4enpql","div":"rumble_v4enpql"});
The post When Witnesses are Asked to Swear an Oath to Tell the Truth – Democrats Object appeared first on Granite Grok.
