Some Communist in the audience of a WMUR political show asked Bobby Kennedy what he was going to do about “weapons of mass destruction” … her term for semi-automatic firearms. The answer she got, I suspect, was NOT what she was expecting.

It certainly was not the shallow, insipid, rile-up-the-communist-base, canned answer Joe Biden or any other Communist Democrat would doubtlessly have given. It was thoughtful and, frankly, courageous for someone running in the Communist Democrat primary.

 

Here are @RobertKennedyJr’s statements from last night’s New Hampshire town hall regard the 2nd Amendment.

Some highlights:

-Reiterates he’s “not going to take anyone’s guns away”

-“Anyone who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by… pic.twitter.com/Tie7VisoTd

— Will Fite (@WillFiteForYou) June 24, 2023

 

Independent media is a rare and precious thing, even here in New Hampshire. Please consider the value we provide and then commit to a monthly subscription, a one-time online donation (via PayPal or GiveSendGo), or you can donate by check*. Thank You for Your Support.

*For donations by check, please email steve@granitegrok.com for the address.

 

The post Not The Answer This NH-Communist Wanted To Hear … Bobby Kennedy On “Weapons Of Mass Destruction” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Let’s stipulate that the Left is passionate about writing laws that make it easier to kill unwanted babies up to the point of birth and beyond. The reason for the termination is immaterial.

In the Left’s world, if the mother, the birthing person, decides the unborn infant is inconvenient, they have every legal avenue to end the pregnancy. Maine is poised to allow late-term abortions against the will of Republicans, and 80% of Maine residents polled. Getting 80% of people to agree on any topic is nearly impossible, but 20% can override that supermajority.

In a marathon session on Thursday, the Maine House of Representatives passed LD1619, which has the support of Governor Janet Mills. The Democrat-controlled State Senate is expected to pass the bill on Friday, and Governor Mills will sign it as soon as it hits her desk. Planned Parenthood actively lobbied for passage and spent over $830,000 to ensure passage. There was also a series of questionable manipulations of phrasing in existing Maine abortion policies that made passage of LD1619 more important to Democrat backers and assuaged the Planned Parenthood representatives in the chambers.

There was already an abortion law in Maine that allowed for late-term termination of a pregnancy if the mother or fetus were in medical jeopardy. With this law in play, there was no need for LD 1619. This is where the OAG (Office of the Attorney General) came into play and went to work. The AG distributed a text of the existing policy, omitting the late-term provision. This act turned some to see a need for the new law.

The presence of Planned Parenthood at the Statehouse should concern anyone with a conscience. Planned Parenthood professes to be concerned with women’s health and reproductive assistance. They have a unique definition of reproductive, for in PP’s book, reproductive means abortion. They are in the business of killing the unborn and are doing it with our money.

Planned Parenthood receives money from the government in two main ways: reimbursements for providing services to people covered by Medicaid and grants from government agencies, primarily HHS. Congressional Budget Office estimates that Planned Parenthood receives over $400 million in federal and state Medicaid reimbursements, making it the nonprofit’s single most significant revenue stream. They also receive over $500 million in direct funding. Much of this money, our money, goes to campaign contributions. The potential law in Maine brought nearly $1 million. The government should be looking for a detailed accounting of this money, but you will never see that happen, as many Democrat lawmakers saw some of that money hit their campaign coffers. Let’s be clear that is our money buying votes for a law to kill unborn children. That should anger every taxpayer, but nobody will touch this third rail.

Finally, this bill passed on a party line with a few Democrats crossing the line. Two Republicans were absent; coincidentally, this bill passed by two votes. Showing up for work can be a life or death Matter!

The question I have when the topic of abortion arises is what motivates the Left to push abortion rights. There is never an answer, but the obvious is power and money. The Pro-choice folks tend to be more active and aggressive in supporting Women’s Reproductive Rights. That may be changing as Pro-life proponents are getting more involved and, maybe more importantly, younger. The power is in the form of Pro-choice votes, and the money is all that Planned Parenthood money. These Democrats are selling their votes. This is a classic example of how dirty government can be, even at the state level. We saw on Thursday the convergence of a messy issue and politics. The outcome was a terrible decision that went against the majority’s will.

I want to think the reps that voted for this bill will get their just do on Election Day, but we all know people have short memories, and these politicians with such little regard for life will rarely be held accountable.

The post Maine Joins Legion Of Anti-Birth States appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Constitution continues to get in the way of radical Government overlords pressuring people to abandon their principles to do its bidding. And while it only takes a few judges to thwart that, for the moment, religious conscience has another defender—the US Fifth Circuit Court.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is tasked with enforcing laws that make it illegal to discriminate against job applicants or employees based on a laundry list of “classes” (including religion), fined a Christain business in Texas. Braidwood, a wellness company, opposed allowing “employees to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, regardless of their biological sex or whether they have undergone sex-change surgery.”

The EEOC came down with the discrimination hammer (even though religion is a class the EEOC is supposed to protect). Braidwood sued.

 

BREAKING: America First Legal has won a major Fifth Circuit ruling against federal transgender edicts. The EEOC issued a federal mandate compelling employers to allow men to use the women’s facilities. Our client claimed this violated his rights — and the Fifth Circuit agreed.

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 21, 2023

The Court ruled that Braidwood is protected from discrimination by the EEOC under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

The court’s decision stated, “On the merits, we decide that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] requires that Braidwood, on an individual level, be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock.”

 

The First Amendment tells us that Congress shall make no law abridging religious freedom. I’m sure the genderstasi at the EEOC argued that Congress didn’t make a law; the EEOC made a rule. In real terms, there’s no difference if you are at the pointy end of the stick. Rulemaking with the force of law is law, but The Fifth Circus didn’t throw out the rule or make the case that Congress never intended Title VII to be used this way. It merely said that the Braidwood couldn’t be punished because another law (and related precedent) protects them.

Okay, but for how long? In the hands of progressives (lawmakers or rule-makers), that could transition at any moment into something the genderstasi can use to deny them their rights. And what about the religious rights of Christian women who = as a matter of conscience – are opposed to sharing a bathroom with a biological man?

The EEOC appears ready and willing to force employers to discriminate against them.

 

HT | TGP

 

Independent media is a rare and precious thing, even here in New Hampshire. Please consider the value we provide and then commit to a monthly subscription, a one-time online donation (via PayPal or GiveSendGo), or you can donate by check*. Thank You for Your Support.

*For donations by check, please email steve@granitegrok.com for the address.

The post Court Sides With Christian Business: Feds Can’t Force Women to Share a Bathroom with Men appeared first on Granite Grok.

When I asked Bard – Google’s AI product now competing with ChatGPT AI (Artificial Intelligence) – who was against SB272, I got answers that were not surprising – using REPUBLICAN NH Representative Mike Bordes (R-Laconia) as my entree into the subject.

After all, he was the guy most responsible for gutting and then permanently tabling both the House and Senate versions of Parental Rights.

As far as I know, he has no children of his own, but it did take no small amount of Union money to fund his re-election campaign (what, Laconia, you can’t do better than this demonstrable RINO concerning his votes against you but with the Democrats?). So my question was: Why is NH State Rep Mike Bordes against NH SB272?  And remember, NH Gov Chris Sununu has Bordes firmly as his pet and in his pocket – and Sununu was the Republican that launched this attack on families by the Left by signing that infamous SB263 that enshrined transgenderism as a protected group (and continuing the shredding of “E pluribus unum” of the American population into tribal sects).

Bard answered:

New Hampshire State Rep. Mike Bordes is against SB272, a bill that would require all public schools in the state to teach about the history and contributions of LGBTQ+ people. Bordes has said that he believes the bill is unnecessary and that it would be better for schools to focus on teaching traditional history. He has also said that he is concerned that the bill would be too divisive and that it would lead to protests and disruptions in schools.

Here are some of the reasons why Bordes is against SB272:

• He believes that the bill is unnecessary. He argues that schools are already teaching about the history of LGBTQ+ people, and that the bill would simply be redundant.
• He believes that the bill would be better for schools to focus on teaching traditional history. He argues that students need to learn about the history of their country and its founding principles, and that the bill would take away from this important learning.
• He is concerned that the bill would be too divisive. He argues that the bill would lead to protests and disruptions in schools, and that it would create a hostile environment for students and teachers.

What?? Er, WHO is actually doing the protests in the past couple of years up until now? Yeah, the LGBTXYZ/Alphabet Mafia. Not the Normal kids (although we are starting to see the blowback from having this immoral sexuality religion rammed down our student’s [virtual] throats.

It is important to note that Bordes is not the only person who is against SB272. There are many people who believe that the bill is unnecessary, divisive, and harmful. However, there are also many people who support the bill, and who believe that it is important for schools to teach about the history and contributions of LGBTQ+ people.

It’s clear to see the bias in this AI model, which is derived from the information being fed into it – Google is no right-leaning commercial entity.  So I asked the obvious follow-up question: Who else is against NH SB272?

And like I thought, having seen their tax money lobbyists speak against every individual.

In addition to New Hampshire State Rep. Mike Bordes, there are many other people who are against SB272, including:

• NH School Board Association
• The New Hampshire Association of School Principals
• The New Hampshire Association of School Superintendents
• The New Hampshire Association of School Business Officials
• The New Hampshire Association of Teachers
• The New Hampshire Human Rights Commission

Don’t believe me? Take a DEEP dive into your school district’s budget. In it, you will find the money spent for the above, gathered from your property taxes. They represent the teachers’ best interests, the School Principles, the Districts, the Superintendents, and the Teachers. All of which you are already paying for, and if you’ve been reading GraniteGrok regularly, you know that each of those organizations advocate for their members…

…and not the people, us, who fund them.  Sweet deal to have a double-barreled shotgun aimed at both your wallet…and your Rights as Parents. And the NH HRC is an NH governmental commission.

The rest of these organizations are also in the tank with respect to eliminating all semblance of Parental Rights in the Government School system:

• The New Hampshire Parent-Teacher Association (PTA)
• The New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• The New Hampshire League of Women Voters
• The New Hampshire Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Health Center
• The New Hampshire Transgender Resource Center
• The New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• The New Hampshire Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Bard continued:

These organizations and individuals believe that SB272 is unnecessary, divisive, and harmful. They argue that the bill would:

• Prevent schools from teaching about the history and contributions of LGBTQ+ people
• Create a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students and teachers
• Encourage discrimination and harassment against LGBTQ+ people
• Undermine the rights of LGBTQ+ families

The opponents of SB272 are calling on the New Hampshire legislature to vote against the bill. They believe that the bill is harmful to LGBTQ+ people and to the state of New Hampshire as a whole.

See what’s missing (shouldn’t be hard as I emphasized WHICH families Bard is protecting)?  Or rather, whom? Yeah, all of the emphasis is on a singularly teeny minority (but with loud voices and lots of money behind them).

Yes, that would be Normal Parents – the VAST percentage of the population and those that put their children into the schools that are turning against them when it comes to this struggle of “Who is responsible for teaching my kids about morality and sexuality? WHOSE moral and sexual mores should reign supreme?”.

More and more, and with Mike Bordes’ blessing, it’s the school systems – the teachers, the principals, the superintendents, and their lobbying groups – that believe that parents are PROBLEMS.  Given that most of these folks are Democrats, should we be surprised as their Party would rather do away with Parents? Sure, they will protest these words but look at their POLICIES that tell another story.

The simplest one is their dogma that Parents should never have the Right to decide how their child is to be educated.  Your child is THEIRS and your money is THEIRS in accomplishing THEIR goals. Go ahead, change my mind (with data – not talking points). I dare you to try because I don’t think you have the intellectual heft to do so.

So, dear readers, in looking over Bard’s “words”, how do YOU think it tilts?  Us versus them?

Oh, and my next question was this: “Who is for NH SB272?”

That will be the next post and I can assure you, none of them were tax money supported.

 

 

The post A.I Says Entities Opposing NH’s Parental Rights Bill Are All Supported by Your Tax Dollars appeared first on Granite Grok.

Two New Hampshire House Special elections have been authorized, with dates set for both primary and special elections. They are in Rockingham County District 1 (Northwood and Nottingham), and Grafton County District 16 (Enfield).

Rockingham County District 1 (Northwood and Nottingham)

Primary Election: August 1, 2023

Special Election: September 19, 2023

Filings:

Democratic:
Hal Rafter, Nottingham (22 N River Lake Rd) 03290

Republican:
James Guzofski, Northwood (87 1st NH Tpke) 03261
Jessica Sternberg, Nottingham (8 West Lane) 03290

 

Grafton County District 16 (Enfield)

Primary Election: August 22, 2023

Special Election: October 10, 2023

Filings:

Democratic: David Fracht, Enfield (PO Box 1065) 03748

Republican: John P. Keane, Enfield (PO Box 1233) 03748

If the Republican candidates or their supporters would like to submit op-eds in support of their campaign, provide get out the vote, events, or fundraising activities, please email steve@granitegrok.com.

If you have information to share about the Democrat candidates, online or social media craziness, or their out in left-field op-eds, please forward links or screen grabs to steve@granitegrok.com

Reminder: Content about candidates or by candidates is not an endorsement by GraniteGrok.com or its authors.

 

Independent media is a rare and precious thing, even here in New Hampshire. Please consider the value we provide and then commit to a monthly subscription, a one-time online donation (via PayPal or GiveSendGo), or you can donate by check*.

We are looking for a few benefactors, but every donation helps.
Thank You for Your Support.

*For donations by check, please email steve@granitegrok.com for the address.

 

Independent media is a rare and precious thing, even here in New Hampshire. Please consider the value we provide and then commit to a monthly subscription, a one-time online donation (via PayPal or GiveSendGo), or you can donate by check*. Thank You for Your Support.

*For donations by check, please email steve@granitegrok.com for the address.

 

The post Two Upcoming Special Elections for the New Hampshire House appeared first on Granite Grok.

You don’t need researchers or some fancy A.I. to tell you that conservative women are happier and prettier than liberal women, but someone did some research, and it’s been confirmed by science.

 

“Approximately 3,200 publicly submitted photos of political candidates who ran in the 2017 Danish municipal election were used in the study,” reports Newsmax. “The researchers inputted the photos into Microsoft Azure’s Face API tool to evaluate the person’s emotional state, with 80% of the faces analyzed read as happy and 19% read as neutral.”

“For females (though not males), high attractiveness scores were found among those the model identified as likely to be conservative,” the study concludes. “These results are credible, given that previous research using human raters has also highlighted a link between attractiveness and conservatism.”

And if you want or need confirmation, show this to a liberal and watch things get ugly (uglier?).

HT | PJMedia

The post The Science Says That Conservative Women Are More Attractive Than Liberal Women appeared first on Granite Grok.

This series of essays focuses on those American Founders who exercised the most influence on the original Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights. Each essay thumbnails the life and contributions of at least one individual. The essays also will tell you more about “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Before proceeding with the series, some terminology may be helpful. When the series uses the word “framers,” it means the 55 men who drafted (“framed”) the Constitution. They were the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia from May 25, 1787, to Sept. 17, 1787.

The word “ratifiers” means the 1,648 delegates at the 13-state ratifying conventions meeting from December 1787 (Delaware) to May 1790 (Rhode Island). The term “Founders” includes the framers, the most significant ratifiers, and major opinion leaders in the public debate over the Constitution.

A Reason for this Series

Most discussions about the original Constitution over-emphasize the roles of just a few Founders. Americans hear a lot about James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, but little about others.

For example, in 1791—before the final ratification of the Bill of Rights—members of the Washington administration debated whether the new Constitution authorized Congress to charter a national bank. Here’s how that debate is usually portrayed:

“President George Washington asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to write legal opinions on whether the Constitution authorized Congress to charter a national bank. Hamilton interpreted the Constitution expansively and concluded Congress could do so. Jefferson interpreted it narrowly and concluded that Congress could not. The president agreed with Hamilton, and even James Madison, who initially opposed the bank, later relented. The lesson is that expansive interpretation makes more sense than narrow interpretation.”

That’s pretty much how I learned the story in high school and college. But it leaves out key facts—and the omissions render it, as we lawyers say, “materially misleading.”

Here’s the rest of the story:

First: When the Constitution was written, the dominant way of reading legal documents was neither “expansive” nor “narrow.” It was a middle ground known as “fair construction.” Jefferson was wrong to interpret the document narrowly, and Hamilton was equally wrong to interpret it expansively.

Second: Whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to charter a bank was a genuinely close question. Both opponents and advocates had reasonable arguments.

Third: The typical narrative omits another Founder of great importance: Edmund Randolph. Randolph was the U.S. attorney general, and it was his job—not that of Jefferson or Hamilton—to write legal opinions for the president.

Fourth: Randolph was far more qualified than either Jefferson or Hamilton to address the issue. Prior to becoming U.S. attorney general, he had served for 10 years as attorney general of Virginia. He was a member of the committee that wrote his state’s constitution. As governor of Virginia, he led his state’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention. As a member of the convention’s “committee of detail,” he participated in writing the first draft of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), which was at the center of the bank dispute. And at the Virginia ratifying convention, Randolph (not Madison) was the lead spokesman for the Constitution, and addressed the Necessary and Proper Clause.

By contrast, Jefferson had been in France during the constitutional debates. Hamilton had been absent during most of the framing. Moreover, he admitted that the Constitution didn’t match at all what he favored. After the convention, he even wrote a private memorandum (pdf) evidencing his intention to try to subvert the Constitution’s limits and “triumph over the state governments and reduce them to an entire subordination.”

Thus, neither Jefferson’s nor Hamilton’s constitutional opinions were particularly reliable.

Fifth: Randolph duly submitted a legal opinion using the “fair construction” method. He concluded that Congress had no power to charter a bank.

When you know these facts, you can see that what happened was very different from what is usually taught in school—and that Randolph has been unfairly neglected. In this series, he will be given his due.

The Founders’ Places on the Political Spectrum

Another common, and erroneous, narrative is that the Constitution was the product of a “conservative counterrevolution” against the “radicalism” of the American Revolution. This is categorically false.

The Constitution, especially as amended by the Bill of Rights, wasn’t the product of any one faction, conservative or otherwise. It was the product of negotiation among people of different views—with moderates working to bring all parties together. The result was a coalition spanning most, although not all, of the American political spectrum.

What was the political spectrum during the constitutional debates of 1787–1790? And where on the spectrum did the key Founders reside?

Different writers describe the spectrum in different ways, but I divide it into six loose categories, running from “right” to “left.” (Keep in mind that this isn’t the same way we use “right” and “left” today.) The six groups are as follows:

Group #1: Unreconstructed Tories

On the “far right” were the unreconstructed Tories. These were Americans who had been loyal to the Crown during the Revolution, and who never accepted the war’s outcome. They favored limited monarchy over republicanism, with privileges for the aristocratic few. Their view of individual rights was more constricted than that of other Americans. Instead of a new constitution, they preferred a deal with Britain whereby the states became largely self-governing units of the British empire.

During the Revolution and immediately afterward, many unreconstructed Tories fled to Canada or Britain, so during the constitutional debates relatively few remained in America. For reasons of personal and professional safety, they tended to keep quiet.

Unreconstructed Tories were not part of the coalition that adopted the Constitution.

Ironically, the closest modern American analogs to unreconstructed Tories are on the political left: today’s “progressives.” While there are significant differences, “progressives” echo some key Tory beliefs: a limited view of individual rights, a broad view of government prerogatives, a tendency to promote certain government-created privileges as if they were rights—and disdain for the original Constitution.

Group #2: High Nationalists

Next from the “right” were the high nationalists. Unlike the Tories, they welcomed American Independence. But they admired the British political system and would have preferred to partially replicate it in America.

However, the high nationalists recognized that Americans would never accept a king or hereditary aristocracy. As the next best alternative, the high nationalists proposed a “high toned” republic: an executive chosen for life and lifetime senators to complement an elected house of representatives.

High nationalists also favored the British model of an all-powerful central government.

Although the Constitution didn’t meet all their desires, several high nationalists contributed greatly to it. Featured in this series are Hamilton, John Adams of Massachusetts (in Europe during the Constitutional Convention, but the author of a widely consulted book on constitutions), and Gouverneur Morris, a New Yorker representing Pennsylvania at the convention.

Group #3: Moderate Nationalists

Next on the spectrum were the moderate nationalists. They also sought a very powerful central government, but they were more republican and democratic than the high nationalists. Moderate nationalists were willing to reserve a constitutional place, although a subordinate one, for the states.

From this group, the series will profile James Madison of Virginia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and George Washington (although his political stance is difficult to categorize).

The Virginia Plan, presented to the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, embodied the moderate nationalist position.

Group #4: Centrists

The final terms of the Constitution reflect many of the centrists’ positions because they played a pivotal role in negotiating the final bargain.

Centrists favored a strong federal government but wanted to restrict it to specifically listed (“enumerated”) powers. Some centrists wanted the states to participate in selecting federal officials. The original Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures power to elect U.S. senators was a centrist proposal.

Like the moderate nationalists, centrists favored a fair amount of democracy. Unlike the moderate nationalists, they wanted enhanced protections for the rights of individuals and the position of the smaller states.

Prominent centrists included in this series are John Dickinson of Delaware, John Rutledge of South Carolina, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut.

Group #5:? Conditional Federalists

Just to the “left” of the centrists were the “conditional federalists.” I coined that term for them because they (1) favored the federalism of the Constitution but (2) only on condition that the document be amended.

Among the changes they sought were a bill of rights, a more democratic House of Representatives, stronger protection for the states against central interference, and full state control of federal elections.

Because they differed on which amendments would be sufficient, the conditional federalists ultimately split on whether the Constitution should be ratified. Randolph eventually favored ratification, while his Virginia compatriot, George Mason, opposed it. Both men are thumbnailed in this series.

Group #6:? Firm Antifederalists

Anchoring the “far left” were the firm antifederalists. Some wanted to retain the Articles of Confederation, with a modest increase in congressional power. Others didn’t think a 13-state union was viable in the long run and favored dividing the country. The most notable firm antifederalist was Patrick Henry of Virginia.

Some of the Constitution’s advocates were convinced that this group on the “far left” was receiving quiet support from unreconstructed Tories on the “far right.” (In my political experience, I have seen similar phenomena.) Perhaps the Tories were thinking that if the country split, some sections might return to British tutelage.

Thus, the coalition that ratified the Constitution excluded the two extremes, but otherwise spanned the political spectrum.

To the individuals mentioned above, I reserve the right to add one more.

Final Comments

Two facts will become clear as the series progresses: First, several of the figures profiled have been seriously underestimated or underappreciated. Perhaps the leading examples are Dickinson and Randolph.

Second, although the men profiled in this series often disagreed with each other, each played a part of which Americans can be proud.

 

 

Rob Natelson | The Tenth Amendment Center

The post The Founders and the Constitution: Introduction appeared first on Granite Grok.

The traditional roles of a man are the head of their family: Husband, Provider, Father – and Protector. Sadly, what the so-called Elites are trying to do is to condition and “breed that out” of us. Why?

First, it destroys our natural history of why a Husband and Father are important, not only to the nuclear family but to Society in general. Sheeple, who refuse to do for themselves and expect others to do for them, is not a threat to those that wish to remove the Constitutional Republic that our genius Founding Fathers bequeathed upon us as their legacy. By taking over, bit by bit, how does one dare bit the hand that may not care about your but leverages your spouse and children against those seemingly quaint notions of Freedom from Government and making do for oneself?

And here’s a guy, an ordinary schlub, that simply blows up that entire narrative by being that traditional guy (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Dad shoots would-be intruder who “accosted” kids in backyard

Police in Johnston County, North Carolina are investigating a Father’s Day shooting involving an armed dad and a 23-year-old who allegedly “accosted” an 11-year-old girl before trying to gain entry into the family’s home.  Authorities were called out [to] the scene of a breaking and entering in the small town of Wilson’s Mills around 9 p.m. on Sunday evening, and when they arrived they discovered the body of the 23-year-old at the home, along with the armed homeowner.

Chief A.Z. Williams said, based on the preliminary investigation, the suspect entered the backyard of the home where children were playing outside. The suspect allegedly tried to accost an 11 year-old girl. Other children ran inside the home and alerted the mother and father.

Stupidity flew into that backyard and into this 23-year-old’s skull filled with vacuum for not understanding the MOST important question: “What is it about this house that I don’t know but should?” In this case, his two brain cells were answerless:

Police said the suspect attempted to follow the children into the residence by pulling on the back door handle and shaking it violently.

The homeowner and father shot the 23 year-old suspect who died from his injuries. The name of the suspect is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

Chief Williams said this appears to be a case of a father protecting his family. The suspect was unknown to the family.

Failure to even:

• “Play checkers” – to check his next moves and what the responses would be (“What don’t I know?”)
• ask the question, “what’s the worst thing that could happen to ME?” (“What is it about this house that I don’t know about?”)
• Assuming that Dad (based on decades of commercials, sit-coms, movies, and general Societal put-downs) would be just a wimp and of no account.
• Contemplate Dad would become Godzilla when his children were put at risk.

And was armed.  My hat is off to the Dad in this case. Attack my kids, start to attack my home and hearth? Yeah, full Protector beast mode – and justifiably so.

Even then, the armed dad didn’t run outside to confront the man who accosted his daughter. It sounds like if the 23-year-old had wandered off into the gloaming instead of trying to enter the home he’d be alive today, though he might have been in police custody. Based on the public statements by Williams, this wasn’t a case of vigilantism, but of self-defense. A strange man shows up in the yard where kids are playing, tries to grab one of them, and then when the kids run inside tries to gain entry to the home himself. Only then did the homeowner fire the fatal shot; not out of malice or rage, but to prevent the stranger from coming inside and possibly harming the kids and/or the homeowner himself.

I’m betting it was only seconds from start to finish – worst case, 1-2 minutes. Unless a roaming police car was nearby in this 3,000-person village, too short of a time for a “wait for the police” situation – you know, the kind that Big Daddy Government types wish to turn us into. That only Government should be in charge of our self-defense (yep, another oxymoron there), and we should run and hide.

Dad said SCREW THAT, these are MY kids!

You know, Dad didn’t know if that 23-year-old was armed with a firearm or with just a knife or nothing at all. He simply went, I imagine, “Kids -> protect! I will put myself at risk to protect them because *I* am responsible for them.”. Kudos to him.

All of us that own guns have gone over that kind of situation, and many others, in asking ourselves, “How would I react? Would we hesitate? What is my mental checklist? What is the situation? Do I have the skills? How big is the threat? Is there time for the police – or not?” and many others.

The biggest one? “Although the aim is to neutralize a threat, am I prepared to take a life to protect those that I live and that are around me?“. For many, too difficult a question, and their answer is no”. That’s fine, but don’t then be those that would prevent me from answering yes but then rendering me helpless (as I’m closer to 70 than 60 and I, like all at my age, am seeing the biological clock remove muscle mass and strength typical of this age) with “The Equalizer.”

Yes, it is a difficult decision and fraught with all kinds of ramifications leading up to and afterward. Who knows if that Dad had done this “wargaming” ahead of time or just did the right thing instinctively (and YES, it was the right thing to have done)?

What what you do? I know those of you who own guns for various reasons have most likely thought this through – what were your reasoning and your conclusion?

And for those of you who don’t own firearms AND answered “No” to my question, what would YOU do?  How would you protect yourself and those around you? WOULD you protect yourself?

HT | Bearing Arms

The post Second Amendment Happy Ending – Dad Protects Family on Father’s Day appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s very hard for anyone who has been serially abused as a child to have the courage to speak up as an adult, even more so when the State of New Hampshire endorsed the abuse and the very people arguing both sides of the YDC horror show may have been involved in the cover-ups — for decades.

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

I have heard reports that victims of abuse at YDC are being censored about what they say because it incriminates New Hampshire’s Law Enforcement agencies as well, and the AG is protecting those. Why should attorneys be silencing them for speaking the real truth to power? Are those attorneys scared that their own lucrative businesses will be blackballed?

It is critical to shed sunlight on what is happening in New Hampshire. It follows a pattern across the US that can no longer be ignored:

Systemic abuse of children under state care: brainwashing, sexual abuse, violence, trafficking by State agency-backed, DHHS, FBI & CIA-backed operations that public officials can no longer hide.

A lot of it can be tied to the CIA program MK Ultra and Maximus Inc.

The rise in child abuse under New Hampshire state care directly correlates to the introduction of Maximus Inc founded by David Mastram, a Vietnam vet.

New Hampshire was an early target for Maximus via Kathleen Kerr from NH DCYF, who now sits on the board of Maximus, which is located at 10 Ferry Street, Concord, New Hampshire, where a number of other dubious agencies related to the CIA, FBI, children, and drugs are located.

As over 1000 complaints against the State of New Hampshire for child abuse at the Sununu Youth Detention Center get underway, we cannot forget that former NH AG Gordon MacDonald blamed “victim negligence” when Russ Rilee filed the class action lawsuit a couple of years ago for David Meehan et al. v New Hampshire.

“Contributory negligence is nothing more than the state’s way of saying that I am to blame for the horrendous torture, rape and abuse I endured at the hands of their systems, institutions and employees,” Meehan, 39, said in a phone interview Saturday. “These people were allowed to do the unthinkable and get paid for it, and now they’re being protected, while me and my family suffer.”

AG Gordon MacDonald was talking about children when he blamed “victim negligence.”

When Anna Carrigan blew the whistle on child abuse under state care, she faced retaliation. She, too, was dismissed by former AG Gordon MacDonald, and then she was dismissed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. When I spoke up about a “Kids for Cash” type enterprise, I was threatened with a defamation suit by Shaheen & Gordon on behalf of the NHCADSV and Amanda Grady Sexton. I was asked to back down while Amanda Grady Sexton was running for re-election in Concord.

This is what matters to Gordon MacDonald and Amanda Grady Sexton — their own careers above a very serious issue in which they/their agencies/ city councils have been involved and which involves serious child abuse paid for with taxpayer money. They/their agencies/city councils are accountable to the public and to the victims of child abuse, coercion, cover-ups, bullying, lying, stalking, and worse.

I’ve heard attorneys dismiss Gordon MacDonald’s response to the class action YDC suit as just a standard response, but it’s not. It shows you the true value the former AG and current New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice assigns to children — zero for their welfare, a lot for the amount of money that can be made in grants and lawsuits from their abuse.

Gordon MacDonald follows in the footsteps of others in the New Hampshire Supreme Court — especially Chuck Douglas Esq, who allegedly ordered a 13-year-old girl back to the Youth Detention Center after she was impregnated and she refused to name her rapist. I understand the State paid for the abortion. Chuck Douglas is the Chair of the Judicial Selection Committee. Why?

Until AG John Formella came along, every AG and every Governor and the entire New Hampshire court system, and the child welfare system ignored, brushed aside, or hid decades of child abuse under State care.

Nobody was charged for ordering an intern to delete files of child sex abuse during a time when the DCYF knew there was a criminal investigation going on. Why not?

All that happens is that the head of the DCYF steps down, and the head of the DHHS steps down.

No charges, no prosecutions. No accountability. That leaves only one answer: The State Officials in New Hampshire — the very ones who disburse federal grants, who are supposed to look out for the constitutional rights of ALL New Hampshire Citizens, who are supposed to be prosecuting employees of the YDC — endorsed the abuse and endorsed the cover-ups of abuse.

If the AG’s office were to prosecute the head of the DCYF or the head of the DHHS, Youth Prosecutors, Sheriffs, or anyone else who is a decision maker, the discovery would reveal the complicity of the AG, the agencies tied to them, and State Officials.

Actually, these need to get exposed for the future safety of all children.

Two prosecutors for the YDC abuse from the AG’s office have resigned. Why?

Millions of documents have been hidden. This is not by accident. It was coordinated. Budgets were approved, contracts were approved, new hires were approved, and reviews were approved. The State was given documents. The people in charge in the AG’s office, DCYF, DHHS, Department of Corrections, Department of Revenue, Executive Committee, NH Bar, and NH Courts, made choices, and those choices indelibly harmed the lives of children and their families— forever.

A Judge has cited conflicts of interest for the State to be playing both sides.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman called out the conflict in the Attorney General’s Office prosecuting the former state employees who allegedly abused children, while at the same time defending the state in the civil lawsuit brought by the victims.

The Sununu Youth Services Center was formerly called the Youth Development Center or YDC where juveniles were incarcerated as delinquents.

“But you seem to be saying it’s fine if the person hasn’t been convicted yet, for the state to go to court, seek bail, put somebody on trial, stand up, tell the jury this guy committed aggravated felonious sexual assault on that day, and the state of New Hampshire can come into a different courtroom and say, oh, no, that never happened. The person we called the victim in the other courtroom is a liar. It just — that seems incongruous to me,” Schulman told lawyers for the state during a recent hearing.

It’s not yet clear if any representative from the Attorney General’s Office or the New Hampshire State Police will sit for depositions.

Michael Garrity, communications director for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, said the matter is being considered.

“We have received the notices, are reviewing them, and will respond as appropriate,” Garrity said.

The deposition notice allows state employees to skip appearing if the state produces documents lawyers for the victims are seeking.

The NHCADSV puts out a message to solicit victims, but the NHCADSV is responsible for the abuse of teenagers: NH v Griffin Furlotte, in which a teen girl testified that police and public officials lied to her, bullied her, stalked her, and turned her life into a nightmare. Furlotte (who was 17 when arrested) indicated he’d been treated as a “monster” in pretrial detention. The NHCADSV meanwhile gloated and turned up at his hearing, wearing pins in support of “the victims.”

A third alleged victim decided not to continue with the charges. She spoke in support of Furlotte in court Monday.

“For months, I was jerked around by the staff at Pembroke Academy, local police and officials involved with the investigation,” she said. “I was manipulated, lied to, kept in the dark and force fed enumerated versions of events that supposedly happened between griffin and I.”

Furlotte has been incarcerated since his arrest in June. He is expected to remain in jail until June 2020.

“He was a teenager who made some mistakes, but he didn’t do the most serious and graphic things he was accused of in this case,” defense attorney Charles Keefe said.

Furlotte will also have to register as a Tier 1 sex offender.

The county attorney’s office said the victims and Pembroke police gave their consent to the sentencing agreement.

Missing from WMUR’s report is the statement by one of the girls who mentioned that she felt manipulated by the prosecutors. Also missing are Furlotte’s own statements about the treatment he received in pretrial detention as a 17-year-old: “I was verbally abused, assaulted and worse as a direct result of these accusations.”

They were accusations. They had not been proven, and the State of New Hampshire, NHCADSV, Police Department, DA’s office, and Department of Corrections thought it was perfectly fine to lie to Furlotte’s mother, cart him off in front of her and then abuse him in pretrial detention and beat him into submission to plea for his life. It’s NOT OK, and there must be accountability.

Here is the NHCADSV’s fickle message regarding the YDC abuse, having celebrated their victory on Griffin Furlotte — putting their hand out to help because they get an estimated 20% of each civil settlement. Like the AG’s office, they play it both sides for their own advantage.

Anyone who was physically or sexually assaulted or abused at the YDC is encouraged to contact their local crisis center. Crisis center advocates are available across New Hampshire to provide free and confidential support to anyone impacted by sexual violence. Crisis center services are also available to anyone who has experienced or witnessed abuse, or who is looking to find ways to support someone who has. Crisis centers can provide individual support, support groups, assistance reporting abuse, help understanding options and the legal system, court and hospital accompaniment, housing assistance, and referrals for local services including mental health and substance abuse services. To speak with an advocate, please call the statewide domestic violence hotline at 1–866–644–3574 or the statewide sexual assault hotline at 1–800–277–5570 or find the crisis center nearest you at https://www.nhcadsv.org/member-programs.html.

The YDC cases present conflicts of interest for David Vicinanzo/Nixon Peabody as well since he is legal counsel for the NHCADSV (along with Shaheen & Gordon), and it was to the NHCADSV that AG Gordon MacDonald (formerly David Vincenzo’s partner at Nixon Peabody) referred complainants. Douglas & Leonard have a conflict of interests too.

Letters from Nixon Peabody and Riley & Associates have been going out to solicit more plaintiffs against the state and to get more money for victims. Why are they not going after police, corrections departments, juvenile prosecutors, former AGs, Governors, NH Supreme Court Chief Justices, Department of Corrections, DHHS, DCYF, and other Children’s Agencies who were involved in the coercion of minors, bullying, abuse, drugging, cover-ups? The club is why. The club was referred to in the 1990s in the Washington Post. The same club continues 24 years later in 2023. The club with Chuck Douglas, ex-NH Supreme Court Chief Justice, as Chair of the NH Judicial Selection Committee.

There has been widespread dissatisfaction for some time in New Hampshire, they say, with the state’s clubby, closed-door method of handling complaints against judges and other lawyers.

Not a single thing has changed in 24 years. Why not?

.[more] …

HT | Claire Best – Medium.com

The post The Horrors of the New Hampshire Sununu Youth Detention Center appeared first on Granite Grok.

Strongly worded letters to DOJ! Senator John Kennedy torches Biden nominee! Coming up on Hannity: Lindsey Graham talking tough! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s all we are really getting from the GOP … TALK.

The most important issues to GOP voters are the corrupt DOJ/Deep State and the woke-war being waged by corporate-America against America. In contrast, the GOP’s priorities are Ukraine and … wait for it; wait for it … cutting taxes!

There is more than enough evidence to impeach Mayorkas, Wray, Garland and BIDEN. But the GOP lacks the testosterone to do what the Democrats would have done in an instant:

They impeached Trump twice over nothing and they’re going to send him to prison after they’re done indicting him not once, not twice, not three times, but four times.

And the GOP can’t even bring itself to impeach Biden when it’s in possession of evidence he’s a criminal.

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) June 22, 2023

The post The GOP … All Talk And No Action, When It Comes To What Really Matters To Its Voters appeared first on Granite Grok.

CONCORD, NH (June 23, 2023) – Jason Hennessey, President of NH Right to Life (NHRTL), issued the following comments ahead of the Dobbs anniversary.

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

[Today] we celebrate the Dobbs decision, which liberated states from Roe v. Wade, a 49-year travesty of human rights that resulted in the loss of over 60 million innocent human lives. Dobbs restored to the people the power to decide which human rights they want to uphold for preborn children.

New Hampshire is now set free to empower women to choose life. One step in that direction is through NH’s current law, which safeguards women and their child by restricting dangerous and deadly (to both mother and child) elective abortions after 6 months of pregnancy.

The pro-life movement also offers genuine solutions to empower women: free counseling, parenting classes and material assistance through over 14 Pregnancy Help Centers, legislation to require women be informed of the very real deaths and dangers of late term and chemical abortions, and a Safe Haven law that frees pregnant women from raising a child if they are unable.

In contrast, NH Democrats and their pro-abortion allies seek not to empower but to endanger women by trying to repeal NH’s restriction on risky late-term elective abortions after six months.

“Anyone who really wants to empower women should be supporting our Pregnancy Help Centers and the good work they do to enable women to be fully informed about their choices.”

A list of Pregnancy Help Centers can be found on the NHRTL website by clicking Pregnant?.

NH Right to Life is New Hampshire’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to the pro-life cause.

 

Contact:
Jason Hennessey
President, NH Right to Life
(603) 230-8136
life@nhrtl.org

Home

###

 

Editors note: received ahead of the anniversary (today), but we could not publish until today.

The post Dobbs Anniversary and Empowering Women appeared first on Granite Grok.

RFK Jr is saying that he ‘supports the 2nd Amendment’.  But I’m pretty sure it’s not the same one that I support.

The written 2nd Amendment — the one that I support — says:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not ‘people who don’t scare us’ or ‘people who have filled out the right paperwork and paid the right taxes’.  Just people, period.

Not ‘arms that don’t scare us,’ or ‘arms that are suitable for sporting purposes,’ or ‘arms that meet certain requirements on size and capacity’, or ‘arms that the police would prefer that you not have.’  Just arms, period.

Not taxed, or registered, or tracked, or limited, or prohibited.  Just not infringed, period.

By contrast, here is an approximation to the oral 2nd Amendment — the one in use by courts, legislatures, and government agencies:

The limited right of an approved subset of the people to keep and bear an approved subset of arms shall not be infringed except in ways that are consistent with certain balancing tests, and levels of scrutiny, which the courts will invent as needed, and announce on a case-by-case basis.

It’s oral in the sense communicated by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes when he said:  ‘We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.’

It’s an approximation in the sense that even if you collect all the rulings of all the courts over the years, with all the concurrences and dissents, and all the law journal articles written by the justices… you still have to guess what the court will say in any given situation.

In defending his pro-gun bona fides, Kennedy didn’t say:  The right to keep and bear arms in clearly protected by the Constitution, and requires no interpretation.  Which is the sort of thing you’d expect a self-described ‘constitutional absolutist’ to say.  Rather, he said that the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is what the judges say it is, right?

In explaining his views on gun control, he said:  I’m not going to take away anybody’s guns.  He did not say:  I can’t take away your guns, because someday you may need them to remove me from office.

One of those is an empty promise.  The other demonstrates an understanding of the proper relationship between citizens and their government.

My message to political candidates is:

Until you come out and flatly say that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to make sure the people are better armed than their government — and that it therefore makes no sense to allow that government place limits on what kinds of arms can be kept, or where and when they can be borne — your ‘support’ for ‘the Second Amendment’ puts you solidly in the same camp as

Hillary Clinton,
John Kerry,
Barack Obama,
Donald ‘Ban Bump Stocks’ Trump,
Ronald ‘Disarm the Black Panthers’ Reagan,
Tulsi ‘Keep Guns Away From High-Risk Individuals’ Gabbard,
Joe ‘We’re not changing the Constitution, we’re being reasonable’ Biden,

and so on.

And the reason for this is simple:  Any other use that you can think of for the various arms that you might want to keep and bear could — in theory, although not in practice — be handled better by government.  Government can protect you from criminals.  Government can let you check out your weapons to hunt, or participate in sporting events.  And so on.

That makes them irresistible targets for cost-benefit analyses.  And you know who will pay the cost, and who will reap the benefit.

But the one thing that government can’t, even in theory, do better is to fight itself.  Once you admit that, all the other arguments for gun control evaporate like dew in sunshine.

 

The post RFK Jr: ‘I Support The [Oral] 2nd Amendment’ appeared first on Granite Grok.

Transgender Former Democrat New Hampshire State Rep Stacie Laughton, who has been charged with calling in bomb scares, credit card fraud, stalking, and harassment (to name a few), has been arrested again.

 

On Tuesday, June 20, Nashua police responded to a local facility for a juvenile matter, officials said in a release. Officers spoke with individuals there who indicated Laughton allegedly distributed sexually explicit images of children, police said.

Detectives from the Special Investigations Division applied for and were granted a warrant for Laughton’s arrest. She was arrested Thursday with distribution of child sexual abuse images. She was also charged with three additional counts of distribution of child sexual abuse images, Nashua police said.

 

This should be an open-and-shut case. Stacie Laughton (who has a long list of criminality as straight man Barry Laughton in a couples act with then-wife Lisa) should identify in court as a librarian.

Schools and Public libraries distribute sexual abuse images all the time – to children. Democrats defend this material, which includes heterosexual abuse, drug abuse, adult-child-sex, and even drawings or depictions of sex with adolescents.

Stacie should stand up and accuse the state of banning “her” books. Call some school board members or a superintendent or two as character witnesses. Maybe even ask the Dover “book” review committee for their thoughts as expert witnesses.

It might be worth a try.

 

HT | TGP

The post Transgender Democrat Arrested for Distributing Child Sex Abuse Images Should Tell Judge ‘She’ Identifies as a School Librarian appeared first on Granite Grok.

It may be a symbolic gesture, but the House Republicans passed a resolution on Wednesday to censure Representative Adam Schiff. This resolution passed on a party vote, but to censure a representative is the second highest penalty imparted on a House member, the highest being expulsion. The censure was based on the Republican consensus that Adam Schiff propagated the lie of Russian collusion with Donald Trump. They contend that Adam Schiff knowingly continued to claim he had evidence of the conspiracy, used the lie to impact the 2020 election, and spent $32 million of taxpayer money to investigate the lie. When Schiff was called to the well of the House to answer the claims, he showed the qualities that make him the least respected member of the House. Schiff did not apologize for his actions but thanked the MAGA Republicans for honoring him with the censure. He called the censure a Badge of Honor.

The Democrats disrupted Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy as he announced the vote tally, repeatedly yelling ” shame ” in unison. They also surrounded and engulfed Schiff as he came to the well, celebrating their hero. These people can find no low they will not sink to embarrass themselves, their Party, the House of Representatives, and their country. These people, not just Schiff, have lived the collusion lie for the last four years. They all have manipulated the system, affected an election, and used the media to collude with them.

Not that Republicans are without sin or have people of questionable character in their ranks. You need to look no further than Representative George Santos of New York. The difference with Republicans is they do not celebrate their misfits like cult heroes. But how can you explain or justify the abhorrent behavior of many in the Democrat Party? It is a nearly impossible feat, but one accomplished by the media daily.

Just this week, the media was unified in their defense of the Hunter Biden court case proceedings and blasted Republicans for their continued abuse of a man who went through a difficult time in his life and successfully rehabilitated himself. Who sends the master directive to all media outlets to ensure they have the same talking points and spread the same message? Who tells these outlets what stories to cover and which to ignore? These mainstream media outlets continue to survive the tainted news they report as fact and have no issues jeopardizing their reputations.

Adam Schiff will not just survive being censured. He will turn it into a fundraising theme. He also believes that his days in the House are numbered. His eyes are on the Senate seat of Diane Feinstein, who recently turned 90 and will leave the Senate when her term ends in 2025. The only thing that will sidetrack his plan is if Feinstein leaves the Senate before her term ends. If that happened, Governor Newsom has already committed to naming a Black woman to serve out Feinstein’s term. This sequence would leave Schiff in limbo and stuck in the lower chamber. He knows he is destined for higher office. He is alone in his belief. He deserves expulsion and an indictment. A man can dream, can’t he?

The post Democrats Are Full Of Schiff appeared first on Granite Grok.

Family and planning both infer the existence of something and its future. The Left has long defined abortion as the only valid definition. Family planning to a Democrat is a void left empty and you don’t get any of that monopoly money they print in DC if you are not on board.

 

 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded $4.5 million this year to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to spend on “family planning services,” a sum it quickly rescinded after OSDH chose not to spend the Title X grant on abortion. …

Oklahoma law prohibits them from using it to pay for abortion, so the Bidenistas demanded it back. Even though …

 

The most startling part of the administration’s decision is that it’s out of step with its very own federal parameters under Title X. Each year since 1976, Congress has reaffirmed that Title X funds “shall not be expended for abortions,” but should instead be directed toward pregnancy prevention, testing, and for screenings as well as disease treatment and counseling.

 

Pregnancy prevention is also abortion prevention, and while Planned Parenthood (PP) talks up contraception, their core business -their mission –  is abortion. And Demcorats don’t get paid for preventing pregnancy. Abortion powers the laundromat—tax dollars make dead babies, which become Democrat campaign contributions.

Title X (to them) is a way to get your money into their pockets, and Whoever is Running the Biden Administration has drawn a line in the bloody sand. No dead babies, no dollars for “family planning.” It’s a message. Don’t pass any laws like the one in Oklahoma.

This may also be a bit of Biden Payback. Under Trump, PP – whose defenders have long claimed could keep the family planning and abortion money separate (taxpayers were not paying for abortions) had to stop applying for Title X money. They could say it but could not prove they were able to separate the funds.

Tax dollars were paying for abortions. Democrats knew it. Everyone probably knew. But it took Trump to make them show their hand, and the Biden Administration just made it official. There is no separation between abortion and planning; if you don’t use Title X money to fund abortion clinics, you won’t get any of it.

Abortion or Bust.

 

Oklahoma law itself limits the use of taxpayer funds to prenatal and postnatal services that “provide health care services for pregnant women, decrease infant mortality and facilitate the birth of a live child.” The state’s statutes clearly indicate that “health care services [do] not include abortion, abortion referral, or abortion counseling.”

 

Oklahoma’s Representatives have written letters to Secretary Xavier Becerra opposing the move by DHHS, which I expect he’ll abort into his circular file as Democrats look for ways to use this in ads for the 2024 elections. That’s usually enough to scare off a Republican but hang on to your principles for a minute.

There is no denying that tax dollars are paying for abortions. The money can’t be separated, and based on what is h happening in Oklahoma, the Dems won’t give you any if you try. There might be an election Ad in there too.

 

The post Under Biden Admin Title X Funds Abortions or You Get Nothing appeared first on Granite Grok.

Greta Thunberg has been the darling of the Leftist climate nuts for a while now.  Greta is an Asperger syndrome patient, which is an autism spectrum disorder. Asperger’s is characterized by abnormalities in social interactions. 

She focuses deeply on one idea or interest, climate change. Bottom line, she’s a developmentally challenged attention seeker.

It was five years ago that Greta warned, “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”  The press found her to be an attractive narrative carrier.  Her tweet made fear junkies everywhere wet with excitement.

As a child activist, Greta Thunberg promoted a top climate scientist’s warning.  Thunberg later deleted her June 21, 2018 Twitter post.  Well, we haven’t stopped using fossil fuels… It is 2023 … Humanity has not been wiped out …  Oh, Chicken Little… Whatever shall we do?

In fairness, Harvard professor James Anderson was the scientist whose work Thunberg referenced.  He insists his words were distorted by Grit Post.    The article about his work, like the Thunberg tweet, has been deleted. This was another example of the media using half-truths to intentionally mislead the public.

In 2018 Anderson expressed support for a “…Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years…” according to Forbes. He also suggested, “… there will be no floating ice remaining [in the Arctic Ocean] by 2022,” absent major action on climate change.

Guess what, climate fear junkies… your hysterical predictions are wrong … again.  Your leaders are as bad as your science.  Our media are distorting and promoting the comments they find useful in perpetrating their own narratives, regardless of the truth.  They spew propaganda.

It is difficult to understand how people can vote for fear and panic instead of solid science and common sense.  Why must the rest of us submit to such over-the-top insanity?  Why is Biden President?  Vote truth, not hate.

Why did we waste about $11 trillion on covid?

We might as well have simply burned the money… for all the good done with it.  Stop being lazy, do your homework before deciding what to believe.

The post Greta’s World appeared first on Granite Grok.

Texas voters who elected you three times, mainly due to your impeccable record and service, I am disheartened, disappointed, and frankly, quite angry, learning that a few disenfranchised political hacks filed 20 articles of impeachment, led by Rep. Andrew Murr. This is an illegal investigation. The Texas Constitution prohibits this “impeachment. This secret committee is a farce.

Throughout your distinguished career, you have served Texas with honor and dignity. I have been blessed to know your wonderful family. It takes great bravery to stand up to our enemies but just as much to stand up to our friends. When you stand up for what is right, you are attacked by the left and sometimes by the right, as we have witnessed with Senator Ted Cruz and President Trump, who stood up to the Deep State. Now, this scenario is being repeated against you.

I am asking the voters to bombard the Texas Senate switchboard by dialing 1-512 463-0100 to express our outrage. Ken has diligently stood up against illegal same-sex marriage to fight Biden’s abuse of executive power.

Most of us agree that politics is an outlandish craft. Irrespective of all considerations, you always have political enemies who want nothing more than your jugular ripped apart.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s tireless campaign and forthright exposition of his vision assure the electorate and voters that the best-qualified public servant is at the helm in the office of the Attorney General. We can’t allow him to stand alone at this crucial moment.

If the Texas Senate does not listen to the “We the Texans,” they will be disgracefully removed from office like Republican Texas legislators who voted to impeach the Honorable Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Mark my words. You WILL be removed from office. I PROMISE you.

As President Trump repeatedly states: “They’re not after me. They are after you. I’m just in the way.”
Sincerely Yours,
Amil Imani

The post Hon. Attorney General Ken Paxton appeared first on Granite Grok.

The choice is yours. You can live in the real world … or you can lie in the pretend world where the 2020 election was free and fair and, therefore, a massive repudiation of Trump; and the 2022 election confirmed that repudiation of Trump because the GOP underperformed because they ran “bad” (as in Trump-backed) candidates like Fetterman (oops, never mind! Fetterman is a Democrat and a Senator). If you want to live in the real world … that is, the world where you get called an “election-denier” by Fake-Republicans like Mikey Graham and Sun-King Sununu … then there is a MUST-READ article in the Federalist. Some highlights:

The IRS whistleblower transcripts released on Thursday, however, add new layers to the election rigging. According to the IRS agents who came forward, federal agencies abandoned standard procedures to slow-walk investigations into Hunter Biden, ignored agents who pushed for the investigation to move forward properly, retaliated against those agents, and — crucially — interfered even further in the 2020 election by making sure not to go public with details of their investigation until Donald Trump was on his way out the door and Joe Biden was safely elected. …

The Democrat regime interfered in the election, plain and simple. Local officials did so by unlawfully changing rules at the last minute. Big Tech did so by hiding damaging information on their preferred candidates and censoring conservatives. Billionaire activists did so by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into government offices in the blue areas of swing states to run get-out-the-vote operations. The media did it by lying to voters, day in and day out.

But the regime’s deep-state footsoldiers are perhaps the most egregious offenders. Their censorship and legal malpractice to shield the Biden family were in-kind campaign contributions to the now-president — who likely wouldn’t hold that title without their help.

With all we now know, there is a word that precisely describes Mikey Graham and Sun-King Chris Sununu and all the other alleged Republicans still carrying water for Joe Biden: LIAR. And it strongly suggests that Mikey and the Sun-King and the others were always part of the rigging of the 2020 election.

 

The post DOJ’s Election-Rigging In 2020 Went Far Beyond Hunter’s Laptop appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Left’s war on women continues in front of Congress, and Riley Gaines is standing up for women. Their privacy, their rights, and the indifference the #woke cuckold left has for these girls and women.

It’s fun to watch. She knows her stuff, speaks well, and enough from me. Here you go.

 

Here’s the fearless ⁦@Riley_Gaines_⁩ explaining what it was like to have a 6’4” biological man in her locker room – and being told to shut up about it. This is the “tolerance” of the left pic.twitter.com/KjbhGkhmtV

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) June 21, 2023

 

Then there’s this. A different witness says that no male tennis player could beat Serena Williams, to which Gaines replies (among other things) that “Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player.”

Take that liberal tripe!

 

Dem witness: “There’s been this news article about men that think they can beat Serena Williams in tennis. And it’s just not the case. She is stronger than them.” @Riley_Gaines_: “Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player.” pic.twitter.com/MSAnV6IA5t

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 21, 2023

 

And finally, this gem on William ‘Lia” Thomas: “This is a male mansplaining what it is to be a feminist.”

 

“Feminism is not a fluid term…[it means] to uphold, respect, honor, embrace, and celebrate WOMEN,” says @Riley_Gaines_ when @HawleyMO asks about Lia Thomas’ criticizing her.

“This is a male mansplaining what it is to be a feminist.”

pic.twitter.com/aMqQb0WTct

— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) June 21, 2023

HT | RedState

The post Riley Gains on the Transgender Agenda: What About Us – What About Women? appeared first on Granite Grok.

I’m not sure what the “next hardest” wheel configuration but compared to the last bicycle Palate Cleanser with square wheels, this seems to be a bit harder to ride for those with back issues. That said, still looks FAR more “stable” than what I would have thought:

Why stop at square wheels? After the success of last month’s square-wheeled bike design, The Q went back to the drawing board to see if they could come up with a bike design featuring triangular wheels. They succeeded, and unlike the square-wheeled bike, these triangular wheels actually roll like round ones. It’s an idea that seems either impossible, or at least like it would be incredibly uncomfortable to ride.



But by slightly curving each side of the triangular wheels and engineering a pair of articulating (but limiter-equipped) arms allowing the center of each wheel to move up and down, the bike can be ridden without the rider experiencing hardly any up and down movements at all.

Still, I’d rather use a normal round tired bike than being the “unusual” one – just too many joints, at this stage of my life, that are aching to fail.

(H/T: Gizmodo)

The post From Square Wheels to Triangular Bicycle Wheels and They Still Work appeared first on Granite Grok.