“Joe is so effective in spite of his age, but because of it,” Jill Biden said as she addressed a group of seniors this week. The discussion of age is delicate and subjective. The age number is a marker of time since birth but tells little about the condition and quality of one’s life.

Dr. Jill does not understand this concept, as well as many others, as she drew a direct comparison between Joe at 81 and Trump at 78, saying they are virtually the same age. Chronologically, she is correct, but there is no comparison between the two presidents’ energy levels and mental acuities. You just need to open your eyes as you watch these two men go about their duties. The reality of the disparity is so controversial that it is challenging to understand.

Is this woman not looking, or does the First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, have an ulterior motive for encouraging Joe to stay in the race? If the reason is to fatten the retirement fund, then shame on her. If it is to be a safety net for Hunter, then Biden has set America up for another big lie. Biden has already assured America that he will not retaliate and will not pardon or commute his son. Rest assured that should he lose in November or be replaced on the ballot, his last act going out the door will be a pardon or commutation for the First Son.

This election should not be close. It is the first time in modern history that two presidents are running for re-election. This scenario allows us to evaluate their records. Remove the pandemic from Trump’s first term; his results far exceed Biden’s. Biden basically reversed every Trump initiative or achievement on Day One in 2021. After Trump’s gains, Biden’s actions and policies have put America in a dark place. Trump is gaining in the polls as Biden is dropping, but watching these two men and evaluating their plans, the spread should be even more expansive in Trump’s favor.

Now, we have to address the elephant in the room. Can we be assured of a fair election? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

The Democrat’s election playbook is far more advanced than the Republican’s, and not every play is Kosher or legal. They are already the masters of the ballot box. They have the correct message to address Early Voting, Absentee Ballots, Campus Voting, Ballot Harvesting, and Voter Transportation. There is one more new voter activity that should be sounding alarms.

According to the New York Post: Welfare offices and other agencies in 49 US states are providing voter registration forms to migrants without requiring proof of citizenship, leading Republicans and conservatives to call for swift federal action to stop the handouts

Every state but Arizona — which recently passed a law barring the practice on state but not federal forms — gives applicants for either welfare benefits, driver’s licenses, or in some cases, mail-in ballots voter registration forms without demanding proof of citizenship.

There is currently no requirement on federal voting forms to provide proof of US citizenship, though it is illegal to falsely claim one is a citizen or for a non-citizen to cast a ballot in a federal election.

However, millions of migrants with humanitarian parole, refugee, or asylum status are eligible for benefits that would bring them to the offices where voter registration occurs.

The Democrats see these activities as legal, while Republicans contend they are a stretch of election laws. Any questioning of these practices by the Right is labeled as “election interference” by the Left. Trump should defeat Biden handily on a level playing field. With the Left, there is no such field.

The post Jill Biden Says Don’t Believe Your Eyes appeared first on Granite Grok.

The 2024 Presidential contest is unique in that both candidates’ records are publicly reviewable. This has rarely occurred, and never were they so diametrically different. This available data nullifies the usual campaign boasting and promising and may simplify the choice.

Such an offering, if common sense is still in play, shows that one side is such a total failure that it’s a stretch even to award a “participation trophy” when screwing up has been this damaging and dangerous!

Our political world has been in a reset mode for roughly the last ten years, mainly due to the influence of a non-career candidate who eventually refused payment for his service to our country. Say what? This rare sacrifice has been absent since President Washington. Between these bookends of patriotic integrity are the legions of bureaucrats who seek both the maintenance of power and self-betterment at any cost.

So, comparatively speaking, this division is so stark that the political bias that normally fuels all campaign seasons now centers upon name-calling and slanderous accusations, which are strengthened by this blatant, in-your-face lying, which typifies the desperation from contending against a truthful opponent.

Today’s political restructuring has been a long time in coming since one side has operated in these falsehoods, which over time have been believed in part because “that’s the way it’s always been.”

Occasionally, a truthful approach was presented but neutralized by an avalanche of distortions and false propaganda. In the early fifties, Ohio’s conservative Senator, Robert Taft, was about to be the Republican candidate until “the hero” of WWII, Eisenhower, switched parties and bested Taft in the primary. Then there was Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964, who was hammered in the media and was falsely connected in a TV commercial depicting a little girl plucking flower petals as an atomic mushroom cloud rises in the background. This slanderous but frightful example signaled future distortions, ala, Trump will start WWIII if elected!

However, the difference between back then and 2016 was the element of surprise. The latter contest featured one side joking, even guaranteeing that Trump would “never be President.” Some were so confident, they even pleaded for him to enter the race, while considering it to be just another promotional stunt from a showman. They failed to listen or even notice that his heart rang with loving words of praise for his country! His opposition was ultimately shocked but the Country benefited greatly!

As stated, today presents a probable election certainty by undeniable comparisons. One side has proven to be beneficial, while the other has yet to promote one problem-solving initiative or simply even one worthwhile suggestion! This feat seems almost impossible when being the leader of the country he is trying to “unify” but actions speak louder than words, always have and always will!

So this is the stage on which the opponents will vie for our Presidency. We need not list the negatives versus the positives, however, maybe a deserving comment or two.

First, why the re-opening of our borders so that who knows who enters but more unsettling, who cares? From this anti-American policy, voters are left wondering just which country our President is serving! Secondly, is the prostitution of this climate hysteria at the point that the gasoline engine is such a devastating enemy that we now must buy electric vehicles! Imagine this “must buy” edict in “the land of the free!” In addition, this Presidential “uniter” has just about outlawed all of America’s oil production while continuing to close our fossil-fuel-generating plants.

No longer can lofty promises combined with slandering the opponent carry the election season to success since campaigning must tackle the impossible task of putting a mask on an ineptness that borders upon treason!

When the lies are intended to dismiss what has already been personally witnessed, the “jig is up!” What else is left? I shuttered to think, especially when talk surfaces about whether Secret Service protection is still warranted when the protected one is a convicted felon! This is a very precarious atmosphere and one that truly defines the meaning of this November.

The post An Obvious Fix appeared first on Granite Grok.

On June 15th, Woke-Communist OLIGARCHS like George Clooney and Jimmy Kimmel hosted a “fundraiser” for BidenX … attended by the billionaires that the corrupt “media” keep telling us BidenX is “fighting” for us.

And BidenX had ANOTHER BRAIN FREEZE … and had to be led off the stage LIKE A CHILD by Obama.

 

The Biden “freeze” cut is a single camera shot, never moves off Biden.

This Biden team footage cuts away multiple times, then goes to a far-away cam shot when Biden freezes, before Obama escorts him off by the hand. https://t.co/8FniDbpuVK

— Corey Clayton (@CoreyClayton) June 17, 2024

 

The post ICYMI – Biden Had ANOTHER Brain Freeze appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Left, moderates and Radicals alike, have banded together to quickly respond and react to any statement they can elaborate on, use to their advantage, and be consistent on topic across the party as quickly as humanly possible. It does not matter if the facts are correct.

If you say something often enough, and the mainstream media covers you and substantiates your story, everyone to the left of reality will believe you.

This week, this coordinated effort to take a sound bite or quote from Donald Trump and twist and manipulate it to mean the opposite of the original. During Trump’s meetings with Republican Congressional members, he allegedly commented about Milwaukee, the host city of the upcoming Republican convention. From people in the room who heard the President firsthand, Trump was commenting on the crime problem in Milwaukee and the status of election integrity in Wisconsin. He referred to both as horrible.

Of course, many who were not in the room, politicians, celebrities, and, of course, the media, took great liberties in quoting the President, who they did not hear. Suddenly, the specific comments on two real situations became a general statement that Milwaukee was a “horrible city.” The media was in a frenzy, and Democrats seized the opportunity to pounce.

This reaction from the Left showed how quickly they could mobilize and distribute a message. Of course, they took to the air with their versions of Trump’s words, billboards went up in Milwaukee to show the residents what the Former President thought of them, t-shirts and pins were available to commemorate the moment, and nobody asked the one simple, basic question of these people; were you in the room and what did the President say.

With a President who has gone into three deep freezes in the last week, the Democrats have a candidate who embarrasses more often than enlightens, no policies that the public will embrace, and a track record that has nothing to brag about. They have no choice but to turn up the gaslighting and outright lie.

Karine Jean-Pierre held the first White House Press Briefing in three and one-half weeks. This is unconscionable at a time when we have two wars, a border still in crisis, and an election in about five months. She had to know she would field questions on Biden’s recent health issues, yet the best she could do was claim the videos were manipulated. Are you kidding? This theory is even worse than the Democrats disavowing the Hunter Biden laptop or the Biden Cartel has not raked in millions selling influence in Washington. It was disgusting and further fueled by KJP’s grossly condescending tone she used when delivering this drivel.

America deserves better than they are getting from this White House, or do they since they put this Team Biden in the White House? I am convinced that Joe Biden will not be the candidate, and the chances are better than even if there is no debate. The question is, who will the Dems pull off their weak bench to finish the game? Talk today actually hinted at Hillary warming up in the bullpen. On the same day, it was disclosed that every federal agency interacting with illegal migrants is handing out voter registration forms. The Democrat election corruption is rising to new levels, and it may be impossible to beat whichever inadequate candidate they may call upon.

The post The Left Is As Trashy As Supermarket Tabloids appeared first on Granite Grok.

It is Wednesday, and time for another memeingful encounter with … memes.

As a reminder, they are memes. Some are made up. They are not to be dissected or fact-checked. And like the corporate media, they are not to be taken seriously but enjoyed for the fantasy that they portray. And, often, some biting sarcasm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Token Non-Meme Video

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because Facebook will try to claim you think these next two are real if you share them… they are not real.

 

 

 

The post Midweek Memes … But, soft! what meme through yonder window breaks? appeared first on Granite Grok.

June 14th wass Flag Day. It commemorates the Second Continental Congress’ adoption of the American flag – the stars-and-stripes – in 1777. So how did New Hampshie’s Largest City celebrate? By raising the Gay Flag, of course.

I say “of course” because this is intentional. It is intentionally disrespectful. It is intended to send the message that we have and are “transforming” America, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop us.

 

 

The post Meanwhile, On Flag Day … appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.”

That is Larry Hogan, running for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. Apart from the nonsense that the U.S. is more “dangerously divided” than in our past (political division is not dangerous), and the nonsense that a DA or Attorney General running for the office explicitly to destroy Donald Trump and finding a state misdemeanor to morph into numerous federal felonies (three per ledger entry) has something to do with “the rule of law,” Hogan is a Sununu Republican, looking to CNN both for his facts and for approval, fighting a war on a battleground selected by his enemy, appealing to Democrats ON THEIR TERMS.

Pretty Kelly Ayotte surely hates Trump more than ever. Twenty’leven federal felonies sure beats bawdy talk between golfers, but even the latter clip, which NBC warehoused for a decade and deployed at the precise end of the 2016 campaign, got Ayotte to cap a continually disappointing term as U.S. Senator by breaking with Trump and bragging about casting a meaningless write-in vote for Mike Pence, superficially supporting the Republican Party as she was sabotaging its effort to carry New Hampshire.

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

Ayotte will break with Trump again, when the time is right. The right time will be after we nominate her for Governor. How do we know this? Because Ayotte is the quintessential CENTRIST. A centrist scans the field, finds out what everyone else believes, and then positions herself in the center. If the left is intractable (and especially engages in rioting and looting), the centrist moves left. Because the centrist believes in nothing—certainly not what we believe in, if powerful, influential, numerous, or uncivil people believe in the opposite. This is the essence of Ayotte’s 2020 slogan, “Listening, Learning, and then Leading” that led a thousand Sure Things like me to abstain or vote third-party and exile her to the corporate boardroom.

Now she is back, with name recognition, a war chest, and a gimmick (womanhood). And a party that knows it cannot persuade loves a gimmick. Ayotte has learned her lines well; indeed, either of the Democrat candidates will do to New Hampshire what has been done to Democrat states and cities and what the leading candidate started to do to Manchester: ignore well-adjusted, well-behaving, taxpaying Granite Staters in favor of lawbreakers—notably, Joe Biden’s hordes of foreign invaders—and the misbehaving. Excuse them, subsidize them, credential them, ensure they can misbehave safely, and celebrate them.

Ah, but what will Ayotte do? What she has always done: seek the center. She will be a Joyce Craig on downers, wrecking New Hampshire more gradually.

The post Larry Hogan and Kelly Ayotte appeared first on Granite Grok.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of blockchain technology, the need for seamless interoperability between different networks has become increasingly paramount. As diverse ecosystems emerge, each with its unique strengths and capabilities, the ability to freely exchange data and assets across these siloed environments is crucial for fostering innovation and unlocking the full potential of decentralized applications (dApps) and decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols.

Enter Optimism, a pioneering Layer 2 scaling solution built on top of the Ethereum blockchain. While Optimism’s primary focus lies in addressing the scalability limitations of Ethereum through its innovative Optimistic Rollup technology, the project has also developed a groundbreaking cross-chain bridge that facilitates seamless communication and value transfer between the Ethereum mainnet and Optimism’s Layer 2 environment. This Ethereum bridge represents a significant step forward in the quest for cross-chain interoperability, paving the way for a more connected and collaborative blockchain ecosystem.

The Significance of Cross-Chain Bridges

Cross-chain bridges serve as vital conduits, enabling the exchange of data and assets between different blockchain networks. These bridges establish secure channels for communication, allowing users to move their holdings, such as tokens or other digital assets, from one network to another, effectively bridging the gap between disparate ecosystems.

In the context of the Optimism project, the Ethereum bridge plays a crucial role in facilitating the movement of Ethereum-based assets, such as ERC-20 tokens, between the Ethereum mainnet and Optimism’s Layer 2 scaling solution. This interconnectivity not only enhances liquidity and capital efficiency but also unlocks new opportunities for developers to leverage the strengths of both networks simultaneously.

How Optimism Ethereum Bridge Works

Optimism’s Ethereum bridge operates through a two-step process: depositing and withdrawing. When a user wishes to transfer assets from the Ethereum mainnet to the Optimism network, they initiate a deposit transaction. This transaction locks the assets on the mainnet and generates a corresponding representation on the Optimism Layer 2 environment. This representation essentially acts as an IOU, representing the user’s claim to the locked assets on the mainnet.

Conversely, when a user needs to move assets back from Optimism to the Ethereum mainnet, they initiate a withdrawal process. During this process, the Optimism-based representation of the assets is burned, and the original assets are unlocked and returned to the user’s Ethereum mainnet address.

This seamless back-and-forth movement of assets is made possible through the use of secure messaging protocols and cryptographic techniques that ensure the integrity and validity of the transactions across both networks.

Unlocking New Possibilities with Cross-Chain Interoperability

The ability to freely move assets and data between the Ethereum mainnet and Optimism’s Layer 2 environment unlocks a myriad of new possibilities and use cases. Developers can leverage the robust security and decentralization of the Ethereum mainnet while benefiting from the scalability and cost-efficiency offered by Optimism’s Layer 2 solution.

For instance, decentralized applications (dApps) that require high throughput and low transaction fees can be deployed on Optimism, while still retaining the ability to interact with smart contracts and protocols on the Ethereum mainnet. This cross-chain connectivity opens up new avenues for innovation, enabling the creation of hybrid dApps that combine the strengths of both networks.

Moreover, cross-chain interoperability has profound implications for the burgeoning field of decentralized finance (DeFi). By enabling the free flow of assets across different blockchain networks, users can access a wider range of DeFi protocols and services, unlocking new investment opportunities and facilitating more efficient capital allocation.

Imagine a scenario where a user holds assets on the Ethereum mainnet but wishes to participate in a yield farming opportunity on Optimism’s Layer 2 environment. With the Ethereum bridge in place, the user can seamlessly transfer their assets to Optimism, participate in the yield farming protocol, and then withdraw their earnings back to the Ethereum mainnet, all without the need for centralized intermediaries or trusted third parties.

Addressing Cross-Chain Security Concerns

While cross-chain bridges offer immense potential for interoperability and collaboration, they also introduce new security challenges that must be addressed. As assets and data flow across different networks, robust safeguards must be in place to prevent malicious activities such as double-spending, theft, or other forms of exploitation.

Optimism’s Ethereum bridge employs a range of security measures to mitigate these risks. One key feature is the use of fraud proofs, which allow for the detection and prevention of invalid state transitions or malicious behavior on the Optimism network. If any fraudulent activity is detected, the bridge can be halted, and the affected assets can be recovered through a dispute resolution process.

Additionally, the Optimism team has implemented rigorous security audits and formal verification processes to ensure the integrity and correctness of the bridge’s underlying code and protocols. Ongoing research and development efforts are underway to further enhance the security and trustworthiness of cross-chain bridges, exploring advanced techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs and secure multi-party computation.

The Future of Cross-Chain Interoperability

As the blockchain industry continues to evolve and mature, the demand for cross-chain interoperability will only intensify. Optimism’s Ethereum bridge represents a significant step forward in this journey, but it is merely the beginning of a broader movement towards a more interconnected and collaborative blockchain ecosystem.

Looking ahead, we can expect to see the emergence of more sophisticated cross-chain bridge solutions, tailored to specific use cases or industry verticals. These bridges may leverage advanced cryptographic techniques, such as zk-rollups or validium approaches, to further enhance scalability, privacy, and security.

Furthermore, the concept of cross-chain interoperability extends beyond the realm of Ethereum and its Layer 2 solutions. As other blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, Polkadot, and Cosmos, gain traction and establish their own ecosystems, the need for seamless communication and value transfer between these disparate networks will become increasingly crucial. Initiatives like the Cosmos Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol and the Polkadot ecosystem’s cross-chain messaging capabilities are paving the way for a more interconnected future.

Conclusion

Optimism’s Ethereum bridge is a pioneering solution that exemplifies the power of cross-chain interoperability. By enabling the seamless movement of assets and data between the Ethereum mainnet and Optimism’s Layer 2 environment, this innovative technology is breaking down barriers and fostering a more collaborative and interconnected blockchain ecosystem.

As the industry continues to evolve, cross-chain bridges will play a vital role in unlocking new opportunities for decentralized applications, financial services, and beyond. By facilitating the free flow of value and data across different networks, these bridges will drive innovation, promote capital efficiency, and empower developers to leverage the unique strengths of various blockchain ecosystems.

While challenges related to security and scalability remain, ongoing research and development efforts are paving the way for more advanced cross-chain solutions, ensuring that the future of blockchain technology is one of seamless interoperability and boundless possibilities.

The post Bridging the Gap: Optimism’s Ethereum Bridge and the Future of Cross-Chain Connectivity appeared first on Granite Grok.

The New Hampshire General Court (i.e. our legislature) has finished its work for this year (except for a veto override session in the Fall).

I have crunched the numbers – i.e. the voting records of 2024 – to determine objectively which members are RINOs – Republicans In Name Only.

The RINO Report is different from all other scorecards in that it looks at every single roll call. It is entirely mathematical and objective. There is no subjective decision making about which votes to score, or what is the correct vote for each roll call.

The correct vote for each roll call is whichever way 80% of Republicans vote. If Republicans are divided then that roll call is not scored. E.g. on vote #161, 79% of Republicans voted Yea. That did not meet the 80% threshold so was not scored.

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

When both parties vote the same way, those roll calls are not scored. E.g. on vote #152, Republicans were practically unanimous in opposing the bill, but Democrats were also opposed, so that vote was not scored.

The RINO Report scores all votes where a super-majority (80%) of Republicans voted opposite a majority of Democrats. A RINO vote is when a Republican votes with Democrats against a super-majority of Republicans.

The House had 284 roll calls this year. There were 232 votes where 80% of Republicans voted one way and Democrats voted the other way. Each member’s RINO score is simply what percentage of those 232 votes he or she voted with Democrats against Republicans.

It should be no surprise that most Republicans most of the time vote the same way. We believe in certain principles such as individual freedom, limited government, and free enterprise. For most bills we reach the same conclusion. This year there were 20 votes where 100% of Republicans voted the same way (and Democrats voted the opposite). There were another 73 votes where only 1 or 2 Republicans voted with Democrats.

Almost every Rep at one time or another casts a vote the same as the Democrats. One example is when a Republican votes against the budget because it is too large while the Democrats vote against it because they think it is too small. Thankfully, such votes are not common.

This year there were 30 Reps who scored a perfect 0%. Looking at all Republicans, the median RINO score was 1.7%, meaning that on average they voted with Democrats only 1.7% of the time. 80% of Republicans scored lower than 4.5%; 90% scored lower than 7.2%.

There were 10 Republicans who voted more than 10% of the time against fellow Republicans. Clearly, they are out of mainstream Republicanism. Even more outside of the mainstream were 4 Republicans who voted more than 20% of the time with Democrats against Republicans. Worst as usual was Dan Wolf.

RINO score		#RINO votes
71.4%	Wolf, Dan (R, Newbury)	140
26.7%	Bordes, Mike (R, Laconia)	52
23.2%	Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	45
20.4%	Thackston, Dick (R, Troy)	42
17.6%	Bickford, David (R, New Durham)	39
15.6%	Coker, Matthew (R, Meredith)	35
14.8%	Mason, James (R, Franklin)	27
13.1%	O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	8
11.2%	Pearson, Mark (R, Hampstead)	26
10.5%	Ankarberg, Aidan (R, Rochester)	23

Here is the full list:

RINO score		#RINO votes
71.4%	Wolf, Dan (R, Newbury)	140
26.7%	Bordes, Mike (R, Laconia)	52
23.2%	Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	45
20.4%	Thackston, Dick (R, Troy)	42
17.6%	Bickford, David (R, New Durham)	39
15.6%	Coker, Matthew (R, Meredith)	35
14.8%	Mason, James (R, Franklin)	27
13.1%	O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	8
11.2%	Pearson, Mark (R, Hampstead)	26
10.5%	Ankarberg, Aidan (R, Rochester)	23
9.8%	Proulx, Mark (R, Manchester)	20
9.6%	Milz, David (R, Derry)	18
9.6%	Sytek, John (R, Salem)	22
9.2%	Trottier, Douglas (R, Belmont)	10
8.2%	Bogert, Steven (R, Laconia)	19
8.2%	Boyd, Bill (R, Merrimack)	19
8.2%	Pratt, Kevin (R, Raymond)	19
8.1%	Nagel, David (R, Gilmanton)	15
8.1%	Pearson, Stephen (R, Derry)	18
7.5%	Hunt, John (R, Rindge)	16
7.3%	Vandecasteele, Susan (R, Salem)	15
7.1%	Crawford, Karel (R, Moultonborough)	12
7.1%	Roy, Terry (R, Deerfield)	15
6.5%	Foote, Charles (R, Derry)	13
6.5%	King, Seth (R, Whitefield)	15
6.1%	Andrus, Louise (R, Salisbury)	13
6.1%	Healey, Robert (R, Merrimack)	14
6.1%	Packard, Sherman (R, Londonderry)	3
5.7%	Plett, Fred (R, Goffstown)	13
5.6%	Phinney, Brandon (R, Rochester)	11
5.6%	Yokela, Josh (R, Fremont)	13
5.3%	Rhodes, Jennifer (R, Winchester)	12
5.2%	McDonnell, Valerie (R, Salem)	12
5.1%	Gerhard, Jason (R, Northfield)	11
5.1%	Mooney, Maureen (R, Merrimack)	11
4.8%	Fedolfi, Jim (R, Hillsborough)	10
4.8%	Lascelles, Richard (R, Litchfield)	11
4.8%	Testerman, Dave (R, Franklin)	9
4.7%	Harley, Tina (R, Seabrook)	6
4.7%	Nelson, Jodi (R, Derry)	11
4.7%	Popovici-Muller, Daniel (R, Windham)	11
4.4%	Santonastaso, Matthew (R, Rindge)	9
4.4%	Tierney, James (R, Northumberland)	8
4.3%	Cole, Brian (R, Manchester)	8
4.3%	Davis, Arnold (R, Milan)	10
4.3%	MacDonald, Wayne (R, Londonderry)	10
4.0%	Kuttab, Katelyn (R, Windham)	9
3.9%	Janvrin, Jason (R, Seabrook)	9
3.6%	Beaudoin, Richard (R, Gilford)	7
3.6%	Prudhomme-O’Brien, Katherine (R, Derry)	8
3.5%	Katsakiores, Phyllis (R, Derry)	8
3.5%	MacDonald, John (R, Wolfeboro)	8
3.5%	Stapleton, Walter (R, Claremont)	8
3.4%	Donnelly, Tanya (R, Salem)	8
3.3%	Boehm, Ralph (R, Litchfield)	7
3.3%	Brown, Carroll (R, Bristol)	7
3.2%	Ouellet, Mike (R, Colebrook)	7
3.1%	Panek, Sandra (R, Pelham)	6
3.1%	Rochefort, David (R, Littleton)	7
3.0%	Ball, Lorie (R, Salem)	7
3.0%	Emerick, Tracy (R, Hampton)	7
3.0%	Phillips, Emily (R, Fremont)	7
3.0%	Seidel, Sheila (R, Goffstown)	7
3.0%	Smith, Steven (R, Charlestown)	5
3.0%	Weyler, Kenneth (R, Kingston)	7
2.9%	Khan, Aboul (R, Seabrook)	6
2.8%	Dolan, Tom (R, Londonderry)	6
2.7%	Belcher, Mike (R, Wakefield)	6
2.6%	Brown, Richard (R, Moultonborough)	6
2.6%	Cahill, Tim (R, Raymond)	6
2.6%	Costable, Michael (R, Freedom)	6
2.6%	Creighton, Jim (R, Antrim)	6
2.6%	Harb, Robert (R, Plaistow)	6
2.6%	Ladd, Rick (R, Haverhill)	6
2.6%	Spilsbury, Walter (R, Charlestown)	6
2.5%	Verville, Kevin (R, Deerfield)	5
2.4%	Infantine, William (R, Manchester)	4
2.3%	Reid, Karen (R, Deering)	5
2.2%	Corcoran, Travis (R, Weare)	5
2.2%	Cordelli, Glenn (R, Tuftonboro)	5
2.2%	Cushman, Leah (R, Weare)	5
2.2%	Edwards, Jess (R, Auburn)	5
2.2%	Ford, Oliver (R, Chester)	5
2.2%	King, Bill (R, Milford)	5
2.2%	Lynn, Bob (R, Windham)	5
2.2%	Melvin, Charles (R, Newton)	5
2.2%	Polozov, Yury (R, Hooksett)	5
2.2%	Seaworth, Brian (R, Pembroke)	5
2.2%	Simon, Matthew (R, Littleton)	5
2.2%	Thomas, Douglas (R, Londonderry)	5
2.2%	Tudor, Paul (R, Northwood)	5
2.1%	Lundgren, David (R, Londonderry)	4
2.0%	Berry, Ross (R, Manchester)	4
1.9%	Connor, James (R, Rochester)	4
1.9%	Gould, Linda (R, Bedford)	3
1.9%	McCarter, Nikki (R, Belmont)	4
1.9%	McLean, Mark (R, Manchester)	4
1.8%	DeSimone, Debra (R, Atkinson)	4
1.8%	Hoell, J.R. (R, Dunbarton)	4
1.8%	Renzullo, Andrew (R, Hudson)	4
1.7%	Drye, Margaret (R, Plainfield)	4
1.7%	Granger, Michael (R, Milton)	4
1.7%	Greeson, Jeffrey (R, Wentworth)	4
1.7%	Horgan, James (R, Farmington)	4
1.7%	Kelley, Diane (R, Temple)	4
1.7%	Lekas, Tony (R, Hudson)	4
1.7%	Lewicke, John (R, Mason)	4
1.7%	Mannion, Tom (R, Pelham)	4
1.7%	Pauer, Diane (R, Brookline)	4
1.7%	Ploszaj, Tom (R, Center Harbor)	4
1.7%	Potenza, Kelley (R, Rochester)	4
1.7%	Smith, Jonathan (R, Ossioee)	4
1.7%	Walsh, Lilli (R, Hampstead)	4
1.4%	McConkey, Mark (R, Freedom)	3
1.4%	Spillane, James (R, Deerfield)	3
1.3%	Alexander, Joe (R, Goffstown)	3
1.3%	Ammon, Keith (R, New Boston)	3
1.3%	Kofalt, Jim (R, Wilton)	3
1.3%	Lekas, Alicia (R, Hudson)	3
1.3%	Mannion, Dennis (R, Salem)	3
1.3%	McGough, Tim (R, Merrimack)	3
1.3%	McGuire, Carol (R, Epsom)	3
1.3%	McGuire, Dan (R, Epsom)	3
1.3%	Notter, Jeanine (R, Merrimack)	3
1.3%	Rollins, Skip (R, Newport)	3
1.3%	Sweeney, Joe (R, Salem)	3
1.2%	Murphy, Michael (R, Gorham)	2
1.1%	Coulon, Matthew (R, Pike)	2
1.1%	Durkin, Sean (R, Northumberland)	2
1.0%	Smart, Lisa (R, Meredith)	2
0.9%	Abare, Kimberly (R, Pelham)	2
0.9%	Bailey, Glenn (R, Milton)	2
0.9%	Cambrils, Jose (R, Loudon)	2
0.9%	Colcombe, Riché (R, Hillsborough)	2
0.9%	Drago, Mike (R, Raymond)	2
0.9%	Gorski, Ted (R, Bedford)	2
0.9%	Harrington, Michael (R, Strafford)	2
0.9%	Janigian, John (R, Salem)	2
0.9%	Kennedy, Stephen (R, Hudson)	2
0.9%	Porcelli, Susan (R, Hampton Falls)	2
0.9%	Post, Lisa (R, Lyndeborough)	2
0.9%	Qualey, James (R, Rindge)	2
0.9%	Quaratiello, Arlene (R, Atkinson)	2
0.9%	Stone, Jonathan (R, Claremont)	2
0.9%	Vose, Michael (R, Epping)	2
0.5%	Leavitt, John (R, Hooksett)	1
0.5%	Moffett, Michael (R, Loudon)	1
0.5%	Nutting, Zachary (R, Winchester)	1
0.5%	Pitre, Joseph (R, Farmington)	1
0.5%	Prout, Andrew (R, Hudson)	1
0.5%	Sellers, John (R, Bristol)	1
0.5%	Turcotte, Len (R, Barrington)	1
0.4%	Aron, Judy (R, South Acworth)	1
0.4%	Avellani, Lino (R, Wakefield)	1
0.4%	Aylward, Deborah (R, Danbury)	1
0.4%	Bernardy, JD (R, South Hampton)	1
0.4%	Burnham, Claudine (R, Milton)	1
0.4%	Comtois, Barbara (R, Center Barnstead)	1
0.4%	Doucette, Fred (R, Salem)	1
0.4%	Dunn, Ron (R, Londonderry)	1
0.4%	Erf, Keith (R, Weare)	1
0.4%	Gagne, Larry (R, Manchester)	1
0.4%	Hill, Gregory (R, Northfield)	1
0.4%	Layon, Erica (R, Derry)	1
0.4%	McMahon, Charles (R, Windham)	1
0.4%	Newton, Clifford (R, Rochester)	1
0.4%	Noble, Kristin (R, Bedford)	1
0.4%	Osborne, Jason (R, Auburn)	1
0.4%	Soti, Julius (R, Windham)	1
0.4%	Terry, Paul (R, Alton)	1
0.4%	Tripp, Richard (R, Derry)	1
0.0%	Aures, Cyril (R, Chichester)	0
0.0%	Bean, Harry (R, Gilford)	0
0.0%	Berezhny, Lex (R, Grafton)	0
0.0%	Boyd, Stephen (R, Hooksett)	0
0.0%	Brouillard, Jacob (R, Nottingham)	0
0.0%	Dumais, Russell (R, Gilford)	0
0.0%	Griffin, Gerald (R, Mont Vernon)	0
0.0%	Harvey-Bolia, Juliet (R, Tilton)	0
0.0%	Hobson, Deb (R, East Kingston)	0
0.0%	Kaczynski, Thomas (R, Rochester)	0
0.0%	Kenny, Catherine (R, Hudson)	0
0.0%	Love, David (R, Derry)	0
0.0%	Mazur, Lisa (R, Weare)	0
0.0%	Perez, Kristine (R, Londonderry)	0
0.0%	Peternel, Katy (R, Wolfeboro)	0
0.0%	Piemonte, Tony (R, Sandown)	0
0.0%	Potucek, John (R, Derry)	0
0.0%	Sanborn, Laurie (R, Bedford)	0
0.0%	See, Alvin (R, Loudon)	0
0.0%	Sheehan, Vanessa (R, Milford)	0
0.0%	Sirois, Shane (R, New Ipswich)	0
0.0%	Summers, James (R, Newton)	0
0.0%	Tenczar, Jeffrey (R, Pelham)	0
0.0%	True, Chris (R, Sandown)	0
0.0%	Ulery, Jordan (R, Hudson)	0
0.0%	Varney, Peter (R, Alton)	0
0.0%	Wallace, Scott (R, Danville)	0
0.0%	Walsh, Thomas (R, Hooksett)	0
0.0%	Wherry, Robert (R, Hudson)	0
0.0%	Wood, Clayton (R, Pittsfield)	0

The post RINO Report Card for 2024 appeared first on Granite Grok.