Monday • November 25 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XLVIII
Manchester, N.H.
The Honorable Supreme Court of N.H. is soliciting amicus briefs or memoranda on the issue of Standing in the Richard v. Sununu et al. case number 2023-0097. I offer the following memoranda in support of the Appellant’s position on Standing.
We want to thank Daniel RIchard for this Contribution (original in PDF here) – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Appellant has Standing under State and Federal law because he is a Citizen of the State of New Hampshire, an inhabitant of Auburn (Part I, Art. 11, Part II, Art. 30) and a tax payer (Part I, Art. 12) therefore, he has an a constitutionally protected right to vote for state and federal offices under the Constitution of New Hampshire (Const. of N.H.) Part I, Art. 11. and Art. 12 (1784) and Article 1. Section 2. (1788), and the Seventeenth Amendment (1913) to the Constitution of the United States of America (U.S. Const.).
The Const. of N.H. Bill of Rights Part I, Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 8, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 14, Art. 15, and Art. 20. All provide the authority for the Appellant to bring this civil and criminal complaint:
“An Act relating to Attornies” passed February 17, 1791 “that the plaintiff or defendant in any cause, prosecution or suit, being a citizen of this State, may appear, plead, pursue or defend, in his proper person, or by such other citizen of this state, being of good reputable character and behavior, as he may engage and employ, whether the person so employed be admitted as an attorney at law, or not. Page 100-101 of the laws of 1805,
“…This suit was brought by the petitioner as a “citizen, elector and taxpayer” of the state…” [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)].
The last article on the Const. of N.H. Part II, Article 101 … “declares that this form of Government shall be enrolled on parchment … “and be part of the laws of the land.” Blacks Law 4th edition defines the law of the land as:
Due process of law (q.v.). By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and render judgment only after trial. Duppy v. Tedor, a 204 La. 560, 15 So.2d 886, 891. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Rich Hill Coal Co. v. Bra-shore, 334 Pa. 449, 7 A.2d 302, 316; …
Both constitutions, state and federal, (Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11; Part II, Art. 5, and Art. 32, (1792); and U.S. Const. (1788) Article 1. Section 4) proscribe that the N.H. legislature shall establish the time, place, and manner in which all elections in the State of N.H. shall be conducted. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)], Moore v. Harper et al. (2023).
The N.H. legislature is defined by the Const. of N.H. Part II, [Art.] 2 [Legislature, How Constituted.] The Supreme Legislative Power, within this State, shall be vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, each of which shall have a negative on the other (June 2, 1784). As the constitutionality of the N.H. Legislature actions affecting the Appellant’s federal rights and the federal election process is in question, the recent Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) decision is now binding precedent on this Court.
“A state legislature’s “exercise of … authority” under the Elections Clause, we held, “must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Smiley, 285 U. S., at 367. Nowhere in the Federal Constitution could we find “provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.” Id. at 368, Pg. 15… [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)], (Moore v. Harper, et al. (2023).
The Appellant has standing, as he stated in his complaint that the Defendants have improperly exercised undelegated powers, by establishing colorable statutes to control all local, state, and federal elections, in manner prohibited by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15, and Part II, Art. 100; and Article 1. Section 4. which has disenfranchised the Appellant and improperly diluted his vote by the state’s passage and use of the following colorable state election statutes.
The statutory election laws schemes complained of, namely NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657, enforced as law by the Defendants, has unconstitutionally amended or altered the election law provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 11, Part II. Art. 32, and Article 1. Section 2 without the consent of the inhabitants, in direct disregard and violation of the mandatory procedural due process requirements of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15 and is prohibited by Part II. Art. 5 as follows: “That clause, which confers upon the ‘general court’ the authority ‘to make laws’, provides at the same time that they must not be ‘repugnant or contrary to the constitution….’” Id. 210, Merrill v. Sherburne, (1818) and Part II, Art. 100, and also prohibited by Article 1. Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)).
The Defendants enactment and or enforcement of such colorable state election laws in a manner not provided for by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11 and Article 1. Section 4 of the U.S. Const. is prohibited by the due process clause of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1, Art. 12, and Art. 15; and such state legislative actions are also prohibited by Article 1. Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). They thereby deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process.
The Appellant claims that NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, and NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42, and NH RSA Chapter 657, enforced as law by the Defendants, permits the state and federal elections to be conducted manner that is contrary and repugnant to the mandatory due process provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art 11, and Part II. Art. 32, and Article 1. Section 4 of the U.S. Const. in a scheme which has disenfranchised the Appellant and diluted his vote by the state’s passage and use of the following colorable state election statutes.
The Appellant claims that the statutory schemes complained of have caused the unequal application of the election laws, and deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process and outcome for all offices, local, state, and federal elections in N.H. It is a fundamental federal and state right for equal application of election laws as between all citizen inhabitant taxpayer voters of this state and their equal fair vote is protected by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 15, and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Constitutional language synchronicity
The U.S. Const. (adopted in 1788 — 4 years after the passage of the NH State constitution in 1784) established the election process for all federal offices (regardless of state) in Article 1, Section 2 (qualification clause) and Article 1, Section 4 (the elections clause). Therefore, the power to choose federal representation cannot be dismissed or overlooked. While reserved to the states (under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Const) this use of the exact same word inhabitant (and definition) is also in federal Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Const (qualification clause) used in the State Const. of N.H. Part I, art. 11, and Part II, art. 30.
The Appellant’s lower court complaint raised federal questions from the start in his complaint, which was briefed on Appeal to this Court. The Appellant claims that NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, NH RSA 654:1, NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657; enforced as law by the Defendants, violates Article 1. Section 2, Article 1. Section 4, Article 6, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and both the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and 17th Amendment by acting to override the state constitutionally mandated process using rules, legislative statutes, and email and oral communications to voting officials across the state. This failure to follow and uphold the law by authorities, while substituting alternative voting processes as though legitimate is egregious violation and an untrustworthy public act under color of law.
The Appellant filed new late authorities supporting this state voting error/violation position on August 14, 2023, and such authorities are now part of the record unrebutted by Defendants. The Appellant asserts Moore v. Harper, et al. (2023), (cited by this court Nov. 29, 2023) to be relevant and binding on this Court.
“Although the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their
duty to exercise judicial review. This Court has an obligation to ensure that state
court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law. For example, States
“May not sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property
interests.” Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 167. While
the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretations of state law
can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not
transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to
themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections… Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) Syllabus Pg. 5.
[Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Established a duty upon the state courts to perform judicial review of any state legislative act resulting from the state legislature’s improper exercise of powers delegated to it by Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const; and for the state courts to ensure that the legislature (1) acted with-in the scope of its enumerated powers when exercising its law-making authority under the Election clause Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const; and (2) for the state courts to ensure compliance with federal election laws.
[Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023) are redistricting cases, requiring SCOTUS to examine the powers delegated to the state legislature in Elections Clause, Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Const. The Moore court cited Smiley from 1932, which SCOTUS detailed as other duties of the state legislatures incorporated into Article 1, Section 4 (time, place and manner).
SCOTUS lists some of the state legislatures’ other Article 1, Section 4 duties besides redistricting on pg. 21 and 22 of the Moore v. Harper opinion:
“By fulfilling their constitutional duty to craft the rules governing federal elections, state legislatures do not consent, ratify, or elect—they make laws. Elections are complex affairs, demanding rules that dictate everything from the date on which voters will go to the polls to the dimensions and font of individual ballots. Legislatures must “provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including regulations “relati[ng] to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” (Emphasis Added) [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)]; (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)).
This Court recently cited the Moore v. Harper on November 29, 2023; “see also Moore v. Harper, 143S. Ct. 2065, 2088-90 (2023) explaining that, in redistricting cases, the Supreme Court has an obligation to ensure that the state court interpretations of [state] law do not evade federal law.”
The Appellant believes that since right to vote is the first fundamental right in the U.S. Const. Article 1, Section 2 as ratified by the states in 1788, predates the establishment of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791. Therefore, the federal standards of review on the Appellants federal voting rights apply.
The 2nd Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) [hereinafter “Heller”] and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen [hereinafter “Bruen”] decisions have changed the methodology that all state Courts must now employ when examining any controversy involving federally protected rights incorporated into the U.S. Const. and its Amendments.
Therefore, the Appellant believes that current federal standard of review use in the Heller, case and then used in Bruen, is the proscribed SCOTUS methodology for examining any of other enumerated individual rights in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
The Bruen Court abolished the past practice by state and federal courts of applying a means, ends scrutiny test which called for subjective judging. SCOTUS now requires all courts both state and federal, when examining federal constitutional rights, the courts must apply a two-part test: (1) examination of the plain text, (2) its historical context, usage and custom at the time the right was adopted and ratified by the people.
The Bruen Court found that “when plain text of the constitution covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”
The Bruen Court citing the Heller Court expanded this protection:
“This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms.” 554 U.S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. “[w]hen the Government restricts free speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.
… “And beyond the freedom of Speech, our focus on history also comports with how we assess many other constitutional claims. If a litigant asserts the right in court to “be confronted with the witnesses against him,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 6, we require courts to consult history to determine the scope of that right. See, e.g., Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 358 (2008) (“admitting only those exceptions [to the Confrontation Clause] established at the time of the founding” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, when a litigant claims a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, Members of this Court “loo[k] to history for guidance.” American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 25). We adopt a similar approach here.” Pg. 16 of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen.
Therefore, the same standard applies to the Appellant’s federal voting rights in this case.
INJURIES IN FACT
Count I
The Appellant has standing as he was denied the right to vote on March 8, 2022 by the Town of Auburn under color of state law thereby creating the current controversy. The Town of Auburn and the state Defendants cite the statutory schemes complained of in the case, as their authority to disenfranchise the Appellant on that day. In an attempt to appease the Appellant, the Town of Auburn now claims that they have exercised the powers of the legislature (not the Constitution) to enact and establish an ad hoc hand count policy (by local rule) thereby establishing (at this time) at least two different ways of counting votes in the Town of Auburn for all local, State and Federal, elections. Said continued actions by the Town of Auburn violate the equal protection clauses of the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 1 and 11; This non-compliant exercise of non-delegatable powers by the Town of Auburn is also prohibited by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Accordingly, Appellant continues to be harmed by the deprivation of a free, fair, and equal election process and reliable Constitutionally-faithful outcome.
Also, the plaintiff has a bonafide personal stake in the outcome of the election in which he was denied to vote, with a personal stake in his right under the NH Constitution Part I, Art. 11 to cast a ballot that is free from potential or actual manipulation by invisible electronic means. The Defendant Town and NH Secretary of State ” did cause harm” to the plaintiff for these named reasons. Defendants continue to enforce and promulgate their ‘statutory’ scheme(s) as law, as continuing harm to Appellant who continues to be deprived of a free, fair, and equal election process and outcome in local, State and Federal Elections.
The NH legislature recently established a hand count prohibition in all towns that use electronic voting machines, which now requires that any town or city that uses a voting machine can no longer have their ballots hand counted. Therefore, voters like the Appellant, who object to using voting machines on safety or constitutional grounds will now be denied the right to vote unless they use a voting machine. This is the nature of the Appellants complaint on March 9, 2023, which issue is now a Statewide problem, as 103 communities use hand count ballots in this State with the rest using electronic voting machines.
Count VI: harm caused by amending the Constitution without Consent
The statutory scheme used by the Defendants to justify depriving the Appellant his constitutional right to vote originates in details of Count VI. The 1976 ballot question #8 improperly statutorily amended the election law provisions of the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11 and Part II, Art.30. Said statutory “amendment” repealed the constitutional definition of qualified voters by “repealing” Art.13 [Qualification of Electors.]; it also repealed Art.28 [Senator, How and by Whom Chosen; Right of Suffrage]; repealed and altered Art.30 [inhabitant defined] by substituting “is domiciled” for “dwelleth and hath his home”; and repealed Art. 3 [inhabitants of unincorporated places; Their rights, etc.] All of these purported alterations to the Const. of N.H. claimed to repeal or alter vote-provisions state constitution but were improperly presented and later improperly enrolled as valid state “law” but without the informed consent of the inhabitants, as required by Part I, Articles 1, 12, 15, and Part II, Art. 5. Art. 100.
The Appellant has standing as this Court has already declared for question #8(b) (inhabitant, domicile change), and question #8(d) (notification of election results) which accordingly are null and void. See the argument that follows: the questions were improperly stated as a 5-part substantive question with only one available answer. The state failed to properly inform voters as to what changes would occur with a yes vote on that 1976 ballot question #8 with five illegitimate subparts.
The Defendants rely upon the “inhabitant, domicile change” of the 1976 ballot question #8 to write multiple and ongoing ‘statutes’ regarding voting pursuant thereof, however, these subsequent exercises of state actor authority under color of law are fundamentally flawed and corrupted. Quoting the Fischer Court in 2000:
…Thus, Part I, Article 11 was not properly amended to cause the removal of “proper qualifications” from the voting clause. Because it is evident that this change was neither “dependent upon nor interwoven with” the other changes to Article 11 nor with the amendments to additional articles simultaneously ratified by the electorate,”…. Fischer v. Governor, 145 N.H. 28, 38-39 (N.H. 2000).
Fischer is cited 8 times on the motion to reconsider on pg. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 on pg. 23-24. of the appeal. Gerber v. King, 107 N.H. 495, 500, 225 A.2d 620, 623 (1967) is cited on pg. 28 item 97 of the complaint and item 10, 17, 26 of the motion to reconsider.
The dependent intertwined vote-modification power issue is long settled law, Gerber v. King (Concrete Co. v. Rheaume Builders, 101 N. H. 59, 61; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N. H. 541, 542; Penrod v. Crowley, 82 Idaho 511). This Court has already declared in Gerber v. King (1967) that the legislature can not properly submit 5 substantive questions, and only provide the voter with one yes or no choice, as this is a direct violation of the procedural due process required by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, Art. 12, Art. 15. and Part II, Art. 100; It cannot be used to amend any provision of the Const. of N.H.
The Gerber Court (1967) reaffirms the Appellants claims that only the inhabitants can consent to an amendment to the Const. of N.H. and such also protected by Part II, Art. 5 and Art. 100 that the legislature may only propose an amendment to the constitution one question at a time in order to properly meet the consent provision of the Const. of N.H. in Part I, Art. 1, 12, & 15 and Part II. Art. 100. Said amendments to the Const. of N.H. were achieved in a manner that is contrary and repugnant to the mandatory procedural due process clauses of the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, 12, 15, and Part II. Art. 5. Art. 100; and said amendment process is also prohibited federally by Art. 1 Section 4 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Said statutory scheme complained of and used by the Defendants relies on the question #8 (b) to enact a change of the historic definition of a qualified voter from inhabitant to domicile, leaving the legislature to define domicile by political design. Said Amendment question 8 b) is the poisonous tree, and the offending statutes now in operation are its poisonous fruit as an illegitimate statutory scheme presently denying Appellant his rightful constitutional vote.
By exercising undelegated powers and interfering in the election process under color of state law, the Appellees continue to deprive the Appellant of a free, fair, and equal election process. The statutory construction statutes so relied upon by the State improperly redefine the definition of a qualified voter in a manner which is both fatally flawed and unconstitutional.
Count IV: harm caused from amending the Constitution without consent
Count VI of Petitioner’s Brief in Chief similarly was used in 1976 to attempt to amend the state constitution to redefine who is a qualified voter. Count IV, NH RSA 21:6 and NH RSA 21:6-a work together, and both statutes are contrary and repugnant to the definition of a qualified voter as provided in the state constitution the constitution Part I, Art. 11 and Part II. Art. 30, plus Federal Art. 1 Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment.
The harm caused by Counts VI and IV is that by enrolling NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a. they grant voting rights to non-qualified persons (namely resident aliens) who are not qualified to vote under the state and federal constitutions: [Const. of N.H. Part I Art.11. and the U.S. Const. Article 1, Section 2. By including non-qualified outside voters, the dilution of those properly qualified are not only diluted, but the propensity for manipulation and recruitment of the non-qualified (paid, incentivized, or otherwise engaged ‘to vote’) opens doors to political voter fraud tactics that alter election outcomes.
NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a dilute the Appellants vote, because it allows persons not properly qualified and registered pursuant to constitutional mandates to vote under Part I, Art. 11 and to cast ballots in all N.H. Elections, local, state and federal which are then counted as a legal ballot. There is also the inability to properly conduct accurate audits under this convoluted and evolving non-constitutional political system flowing from the post 1976-modifications to the constitution.
The Const. of N.H. Part I, Art.11 provides that “Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of voting” and Part II, Art. 30 provides “And every person, qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant.”
Statutorily however, NH RSA 21:6 & 21:6-a extends voting rights to resident aliens; as those persons who are not born or naturalized in N.H. All persons born or naturalized in one of the other states of the union or federal territory are citizens of the United States and a citizen of their state also under the 14th Amendment. The right to travel is protected by Article 4. Section 4. (privileges and immunities clause), but it does not convey state citizenship upon emigration from another state. United States v. Anthony, [June 18, 1873. Pg. 20. Item 72 of the complaint.]
Under the 9th and 10th Amendment to the U.S. Const. the states retain the authority to define who are its citizens, (1790 Naturalization Act); and the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 11, Part II, Art. 30, and Article 1. Section 2. defines voter qualifications. Federal law on emigration defines a resident in 8 U.S. Code § 1101- Definitions:
(33) The term “residence” means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.
Neither the Const. of N.H. nor the U.S. Const. provides the right to vote to a resident alien, and the use of a durational residency as a requirement to vote is prohibited by federal law. 52 U.S. Code § 10502 – Residence requirements for voting
(b) Congressional declaration: durational residency requirement, abolishment; absentee registration and balloting standards, establishment
Upon the basis of these findings, Congress declares that in order to secure and protect the above-stated rights of citizens under the Constitution, to enable citizens to better obtain the enjoyment of such rights, and to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth amendment, it is necessary (1) to completely abolish the durational residency requirement as a precondition to voting for President and Vice President, and (2) to establish nationwide, uniform standards relative to absentee registration and absentee balloting in presidential elections.
“One who has been for many years a citizen of a state is still a citizen thereof although residing temporarily in another state, but without any purpose of abandoning citizenship in the former”. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905)
Count II: harm caused by voting machine statutes
The Appellant claims that he was harmed by Defendants exercising undelegated powers to create and or enforce colorable state election laws contrary to the state constitutional voting laws. The statutory schemes complained of herein impermissibly violate Appellant’s right to an election process free of illegal governmental interference. (Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 11). The three impermissible acts of the legislature (NH RSA 656:40, 656:41 & 656:42) are impermissible legislative (political) acts causally leading to the following injuries:
NH RSA 656:40 materially alters Part II. Art. 32 (without the consent of the inhabitants), materially altering the 200-year-old practice of hand count votes. Hand counting votes were the current (2020 et al) practice in 103 communities throughout the State that follow Part II. Art. 32 (as amended in 1792). Part II, Art. 32. is the N.H. Constitution election clause created by the people. NH RSA 656:40 is the creation of the legislature and politicians manipulating constitutional alterations under color of law.
N.H. is a Dillon-Rule State and not a Home-Rule State, and the cities and town officials have no constitutional authority to change the manner in which the moderator, selectman, or town or city clerk must exercise their constitutional duties under Part II, Art. 32.
The Appellant claims that legislature exercised un-delegated powers when the legislature enacted NH RSA 656:40, 41, & 42 to politically create a new statutory second ‘manner’ for counting votes (electronic voting machines) not provided by Part II. Art. 32. by acting without the proper consent of the inhabitants, one of the injuries caused by RSA 656:40 is that it sets up an unequal election process across the state. According to 2022 data from the NH Voting Rights Campaign, 103 communities in the State hand count, while at same time permitting voting machine counts in 135 communities. The disparity and non-verifiability at the time of counting and for later auditing (re-counts) of the validity of each ballot/vote is an unreliable outcome and hidden opportunity to manipulate computer-counted data as well as including non-distinguishable illegitimate votes (non-constitutional voters’ ballots). Such ultra vires acts by the NH legislature are prohibited by Part I. Art. 1 & 12; plus, the U.S. Constitutional due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
NH RSA 656:40 also, causes an un-equal application of the election laws, it permits local mayors, alderman, or selectman in any city to exercise law making power by adaptation of a local rule, or policy in some towns or cites or not; to count votes by hand or to use electronic voting machines. Now we have two ways of counting votes, the manner provied by the people in Part II, Art. 32. and the new manner created by the legislature to use voting machines. If the manner of counting votes is different, they cannot be equal. Therefore, the Appellant is deprived a free, fair, and equal election process, and outcome.
An injury occurs when cities or towns use electronic voting machines to allow and then count un-qualified, un-verified, and un-certified ballots – ostensibly permitted by statute (argued in Count II, Count III, Count IV, and Count V), to be counted as legal votes. The statutory scheme disenfranchises the constitutionally-legitimate voter as it ultimately affects the outcome in State and Federal races. Towns and cities are free to use machines to count both legal and illegal ballots. The 2020 race saw statical improbability, and while the GOP maintained its majority in state offices, the all-Federal seats in last few elections have gone to the Democratic Party [Which logically makes no sense. Other voting numbers are similarly suspicious of altered voting political manipulation.]
NH RSA 656:40, 41, & 42 are also contrary and repugnant to the separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I. Art. 37 previously cited in Appellant’s complaint [pg. 12 item 51.] Appellant’ standing to challenge legislative actions that encroach upon his rights for violation of the separation powers doctrine.
As the legislature cannot delegate its authority to make law to the towns or cities or the state ballot law commission – as it presently does, [State Constitution, Part II. Art. 5 and U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 4]. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023).
The NH Legislature acted without proper authority when it delegated its law-making powers by statute to a judicial body, the Ballot Law Commission using NH RSA 656:40 & 42, also prohibited by Part II. Art. 5; and Article 1. Section 4. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Such bad faith actions by the Defendants are prohibited by separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 37.
The NH Legislature acted without legitimate authority when it delegated by statute [RSA 656:40 &41] to delegate executive branch enforcement powers using its own rules to other entities it created or caused using the so-called authority of NH RSA 656:42. [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023)). Such bad faith actions by the Defendants are prohibited by separation of powers under the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 37.
Count V: harm caused from absentee voting statutes
The Appellant is harmed by the employment of another statutory overreach regarding absentee voting expansion beyond limits constitutionally imposed. NH RSA Chapter 657 is also contrary and repugnant to the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 11. Altering this constitutional mandate by statute is expressly prohibited by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 1, 8, 11, 12, & 15. Also, Part II, Art. 5 & 100. The legislature can only propose an amendment to the Constitution, it cannot alter or amend the Const. of N.H. without the consent of the inhabitants, properly obtained under the constitutional provisions.
The harm caused by the expanded absentee voting scheme contained in RSA Chapter 657 is it purports to grant absentee voting rights to persons neither absent, nor disabled under Part I Art. 11 and these are the only two categories allowed. Therefore, by expanding this specifically enumerated class of absentee ballot voters, Appellant’s true vote is diluted with countless non-true non-verifiable other votes in a political schema not constitutionally derived. Part I Art. 11 guarantees the Appellant an election process free from un-constitutional governmental interference in process. The harm cause is two-fold. First, it creates a new class of voters, namely mail-in voters with all the potential for manipulation and dishonesty in throughout the request, two mailing, collection, and re-mailing processes (not provided for by Part I, Art. 11); and second authorizes overall an unverified, non-certifiable process representing an un-equal application of election laws.
The Appellant has a constitutional right under the state constitution (Part I. Art. 1 & 11) to insist that only properly qualified ballots are counted. Here all Inhabitants who vote in person must present identification at the local polling station in order vote, but absentee voters do not prove they are qualified, nor are their ballots re legitimately handled throughout and processed to avoid corrupt and unreliable practices. All absentee ballots since 1979 have this same fatal flaw, because there is no declaration of a specific exemption (seven reason and no selection of exemption) and no verified affidavit, which is proof that no one verifies the qualification or identities of absentee voters as required by Part, Art. 11 as part of the sloppy and omissive execution of the current statutory scheme.
This is prohibited by the equal protection clauses of the state Const. [Part I. Art. 1 & 11.] and prohibited by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The harm cause by this effect of this un-equal non-verified application of the ‘new’ elections laws as a significant impact on voting outcomes is evidenced on the N.H. Secretary of State’s website. It states that the 2014, 2016, and 2018 absentee voting averaged 4%.
The 2020 election saw absentee voting increased to 32%. And 32% absentee ballots cast included un-qualified, un-verified, and un-sworn absentee ballots without proper qualifications.
Count III: depravation of due process
In an un-fair contest against the state, the Appellant was denied the ability to present his expert witness over the safety of voting machines raised in the complaint; and further was denied a trial by jury, depriving the Appellant of due process of law protected by the Const. of N.H. Part I, Art. 15 and 20; and prohibited by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Const.
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
Under the precedent of [Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, (1932)] (Moore v. Harper et al. (2023), this Court has a duty to ensure that the N.H. Legislature acted within the scope of its enumerated powers. This Court must examine the acts of the N.H. Legislature in this case and ensure that the statutory schemes complained of, where enacted in a manner required by both the Const. of N.H. and the U.S. Const. and its amendments.
Therefore, the Appellant seeks the following relief from this Court, which is to declare the statutory schemes of the N.H. Legislature, complained of in Count I through VI (NH RSA 21:6, NH RSA 21:6-a, and NH RSA 654:1. NH RSA 654:13, NH RSA 656:40, NH RSA 656:41, NH RSA 656:42 and NH RSA Chapter 657;) enforced as law be declared void ab initio; and tell the legislature that the changes they seek to enact, must be done so by the consent of the inhabitants; and that state and federal election laws must be written pursuant to both the Const. of N.H. and the U.S. Const. and its amendments.
Remand the complaint back to a lower court for a trial by jury for civil and criminal resolution of the complaint.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LIMIT
The Plaintiff certifies that this memoranda complies with Supreme Court Rule 16(11). This brief does not exceed the 6000-word limit.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
CERTIFICATION
I, Daniel Richard, do hereby swear that on April 24, 2024, I did e-mail a copy of this to all the name Parties via the Supreme Court web portal.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
VERIFICATION
I, Daniel Richard, certify that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: April 24, 2024
Daniel Richard
/s/ Daniel Richard
The post Daniel Richard v Christopher Sununu – The Issue of Standing appeared first on Granite Grok.
It's Passover, so Steven was unavailable; Alu seizes the opportunity for a hostile takeover of the podcast and begins throwing AnCap bombs from the first moment! The crew gets into a heated debate about whether the government should ever interfere with private contracts and whether discrimination should ever be outlawed; four different opinions emerge, and many brilliant points are made; the Eds seem to argue that the government is necessarily a party to all contracts.
The post The Conservatarian Exchange Podcast #203 appeared first on The Liberty Block.
I have written on this subject on numerous occasions and have yet to find a valid answer to the question many of us ponder. Why do people migrate from a Blue state like New York, California, or Massachusetts to Red or Purple states like New Hampshire, Tennessee, or Florida? The obvious answer would be financial or safety. Blue states are getting too expensive for even tax-loving Liberals, and the destination states I mentioned have at least one thing in common: no income tax or sales tax. The Red states tend to have better school systems. They also have lower crime rates than the states where they are exiting. Those are actual crime rates, not the manipulated statistics of Blue states, where they do not arrest criminals and, therefore, have a deflated rate.
So, if people are leaving these Blue states for a better quality of life in Red states, why do they bring their Progressive ideals with them that created those adverse climates they escaped? Why do they vote, or worse, get elected to office, to effectively change the Red state to be more like that which they left? I don’t have a means to get inside their heads for the answer, but we have seen how they accomplish their goals.
I have experienced firsthand two metamorphoses in New Hampshire and Maine, directly linked to Massachusetts. I came to New Hampshire in 1983 but was a rare Massachusetts Conservative and did not impact the Red characteristics then. `Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the thousands of Liberals who proceeded me. They came to take advantage of the Conservative principles on the one hand and to destroy them on the other.
Since 2019, there have been 40,000 Democrat voters relocating to Maine, especially to York or Cumberland counties. These people have been infiltrating the Maine government and turning it into the most liberal state in the union east of Oregon. Why these people think that because Oregon or Washington state adopt a policy, it is suitable for Maine, defies logic. Even Oregon is rethinking its Progressive drug laws and reverting them to more Conservative policies. The area around Portland, Oregon, has become so Progressive that many counties in the eastern part of the state have petitioned to secede from Oregon and join neighboring Utah.
In Maine, these liberals have put a stranglehold on the areas of Portland, Augusta, Auburn/Lewiston and have gained a majority position in the Maine government. This power has allowed them to push through bills that most Mainers cannot identify. Gun restrictions in their war on the second amendment, the most liberal abortion law in the country allowing abortion to the moment of birth, creating Maine as a sanctuary state for minors seeking abortion or transgender care from other states, and joining the Popular Vote Compact to eradicate the Electoral College in violation of the Constitution are a few of the Progressive laws now on Maine’s book.
To label Liberal Democrats as Progressive is a contradiction of the word. There is nothing progressive in creating laws that show you are against the principles of America and, taken as a whole, show a hatred of this greatest political experiment in the history of the world. That is not Progressive but Regressive and Destructive. Americans are free to choose the state they wish to live in but not recreate it. If that is your purpose, please return to where you came from on the road you came in on.
The post What Motivates Our Transient Society appeared first on Granite Grok.
I just cannot understand how anyone can believe that the 2024 election, like the elections preceding it, is NOT going to be rigged. For example, in a recent post on this blog: “The trial in New York City is backfiring on the Democrats.” In what universe?
It is working perfectly, actually … Trump is prevented from campaigning for six to eight weeks. The corporate media “covers” the “trial” as if it were a real crime and not a made-up, make-believe crime, and the vast majority of Americans buy into the deception.
The truth of the matter, bitter-clingers, is that America has NOT been a democracy for at least half a century. Our federal elections are merely camouflage for the true government … the permanent administrative/bureaucracy. The “intelligence community” is our real government … they want a proxy war in Ukraine; they get a proxy war in Ukraine. And their lapdogs in the corporate media… INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY FOX NEWS … portray complaint, gutless, self-serving GOP “representatives” as “courageous” and having “done the right thing” for doing the bidding of the “intelligence community.”
When do you think was the last period of time that America had truly representative government, rather than a permanent bureaucracy/spy state that manipulated events to maintain control of the system?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 22, 2024
NEW: Tucker Carlson explains how the FBI and CIA conducted a coup to take out President Richard Nixon with help from journalist Bob Woodward.
“Richard Nixon was taken out by the FBI and CIA, and with the help of Bob Woodward.”
“[Woodward] was that guy. And who is his main… pic.twitter.com/K8Yt9zy9Qk
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 20, 2024
NEW: Tucker Carlson says elected politicians have told him they’re terrified of intel agencies installing child p*rn on their computers if they speak out.
Insane.
Carlson suggested the U.S. is not a democracy and is a tyranny instead because U.S. politicians are completely… pic.twitter.com/41MoHTfMkW
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 20, 2024
The post America Has NOT Been A Democracy For At Least FIFTY (50) Years … But Just Keep Pretending, Bitter-Clingers appeared first on Granite Grok.
Another blow to parental rights is taking place in The New Hampshire House and Senate. SB341 is a simple and logical proposed Bill. SB341 would require all school employees to respond honestly and completely to written requests by parents regarding information relating to their children.
Many people will wonder why that isn’t standard practice to begin with. Shouldn’t teachers answer the questions from parents honestly?
Several years ago, The New Hampshire School Boards Association put forward a model policy for school districts to adopt.JBAB addressed school policies for transgender students. Within the policy, there is a provision that directs teachers to lie to parents if parents ask about their child’s gender status while they are at school. The NHSBA withdrew its support for this policy a few years ago, but several schools still have it in place. You can go to your district’s website and look for school policies to see if your district still requires school personnel to lie to parents under III. Guidance A. Privacy:
III. GUIDANCE A. Privacy
The Board recognizes a student’s right to keep private one’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation at school. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name, or gender assigned at birth also may constitute confidential information. School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others, including parents and other school personnel, unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure. Transgender and gender nonconforming students have the right to discuss and express their gender identity and expression openly and to decide when, with whom, and how much to share private information.
When contacting the parent or guardian of a transgender or gender nonconforming student, school personnel should use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s gender assigned at birth unless the student, parent, or guardian has specified otherwise.
Since then, one parent in Manchester has sued the district, and other parents are now beginning to wonder what else school officials are willing to hide from them.
Federal law requires districts to disclose all records on students to their parents (FERPA)
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are “eligible students.”
*Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records.
So, who decided that this information should not be included in a child’s record and that parents should be denied any information about their children?
If you are concerned about a child’s safety, the proposed legislation does include a clause that allows a teacher to withhold information from a parent if they suspect the child will be harmed. Like teachers, parents are innocent until proven guilty. So, there is no reason to withhold information from parents unless they are a threat to that child.
None of that mattered to the Democrats on the House Education Committee. This week, they voted against SB 341, while the Republicans voted to support it. With a 10-10 vote, SB341 now goes before the entire NH House for a vote without recommendation.
SB341 did pass the NH Senate down party lines. All Democrats opposed it. All Republicans supported it.
Why is it that Democrats think it’s ok for teachers to lie to good parents?
Now would be a good time to contact your State Representative and ask them to vote Ought to Pass on SB341. Tell them that school personnel lying to good parents is unacceptable.
You can find your State Representative here: https://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/
The constant attack on parental rights needs to stop. Trying to break a sacred bond between parent and child is wrong.
The post Should Teachers Lie to Parents? Democrats in New Hampshire say YES appeared first on Granite Grok.
Good Morning. I’m Samuel Safford from Pelham, NH. At age 4, I was diagnosed with a rare genetic defect called Duchenne MD. It is fatal and has no cure. The doctors told my parents that my brother and I would not live long enough to graduate high school, never mind go to college or get a job. But they were wrong.
My life has not been easy. My father passed away when I was 13. I was the only kid in a wheelchair in High School. I used to sit alone at lunch, I was sad, lonely and depressed.
Back in 2021, after a hospital stay, I was diagnosed with a brain bacteria called Bartonella. This illness is an opportunistic pathogen from a tick or flea bite that causes brain inflammation leading to psychiatric issues. My physical disability was nothing compared to the psychiatric symptoms of Bartonella. It was unbearable. My depression turned into despair, and I began waking up every morning wanting to die. These suicidal thoughts became too much for me.
We want to thank Sam Safford for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Fortunately, my mom found me a helpful counselor and a homeopathic doctor who helped treat my Bartonella. Three years later, I can say that I am well and enjoy a rich, abundant life. I am part of a Toastmasters group in Windham and enjoy giving motivational speeches. I am a writer, singer, and artist, and I’m active in my church and community. My life has value and dignity.
I urge you to oppose Assisted Suicide. The medical community and insurance companies will only use it to end the lives of people like me. Instead, let’s provide compassionate care. No matter how you look at it, there is no dignity in suicide.
The post My Life has Value and Dignity appeared first on Granite Grok.
We’ve had many high-ranking and number-one honors over the years (many of them year after year), but I’m not sure we’ve ever gotten this number one. We consistently rank high, in the top three at worst, but Ammo.com has ranked New Hampshire as the best State in the nation for firearms owners in 2024.
New Hampshire is a permitless carry state with incredibly relaxed gun laws (and low crime rates). Any citizen over 18 years old who is lawfully permitted to possess a firearm can open and conceal carry. New Hampshire residents can travel to 29 other states with a pistol and revolver license[110]. The state also honors all 50 states’ permits.
Residents won’t need to attend firearms safety courses, go through a fingerprinting process, or any other stringent tests to obtain a permit. The state also issues permits[111] to out-of-state residents (although they’re only valid in NH). Purchasers are required to pass federal background checks in accordance with federal law.
But what’s better is that New Hampshire currently doesn’t have a state sales tax[112]. So you won’t pay additional taxes on firearms purchases. Those finding themselves in a self-defense situation may be protected from prosecution if they are protecting life or property, with no duty to retreat[113].
Governor Chris Sununu recently signed into law a bill[114] that restricts the state’s law enforcement from enforcing federal laws that infringe on an individual’s right to gun ownership. Essentially, New Hampshire seems to be the best state for gun owners, with low crime rates and minimal restrictions on firearms and purchases.
You can see how your State fared here or check out their visually stimulating map with big, friendly numbers. California ranked 50, New York 49, and Vermont – how far it has fallen – is 31.
Ammo.com provides its methodology (ranking factors) along with footnotes to links on which it bases its research.
So, congrats to NH. Another number One.
The post Ammo.com Names New Hampshire #1 Best State for Firearms Owners appeared first on Granite Grok.
As promised in Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over. And yes there will be a Friday edition too.
Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
Please understand that I don’t want to be right on my Depopulation Speculations – already late on the timing, so there’s hope – but at the same time…
Caddyshack – Well? We’re Waiting (youtube.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
There would, doubtless, still be people who – despite the pain at the pump and inflation in general – would still cheer that “Orange Man” is not in power. My belief is this, captured in a cartoon, that people could be in a collapsed society, but still be grateful that Trump is not in.
Simple: to keep those citizens from defending themselves against those armed illegals.
More generally, liberals evade facts that don’t support their view of their moral (and intellectual) superiority.
For Hollyweird, trans kids are a trendy fashion statement. Burn. It. All. Down.
No, no they don’t. Reality imitates art.
I’d argue it’s much worse than that.
Why am I somehow reminded of Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation?
There’s a scene in the movie “Devil’s Advocate” where Satan (Al Pacino) is talking about using the law to get acquittal after acquittal after acquittal until the universe fills up with darkness – or something like that.
What hath feminism wrought? Same with porn for men – the expectations are set that cannot possibly match reality.
Is Trump “salvation”? I doubt it; certainly he’s not a deity.
I know I’ve mentioned it before… in one of Bernard Goldberg’s books he described how a reporter, on the scene as an eye witness to a massive chemical spill / release (in India IIRC – possibly the Bhopal incident) where he called his editor to describe it. That editor declined to run what would have been a career-making scoop… until he saw it coming across “the wires” so it was officially news.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
Yes, they are coming for your kids. It’s Communist doctrine to do so.
https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/children-and-indoctrination.mp4
This about the video: a woman abandons her family – children! – to become a missionary for Communism in Russia. Thus proving my oft-asserted point – that this is a RELIGION. And that the fight against the Left is not a war of ideas per se, but a religious war against fanatics who believe they can create paradise on earth. See Bill Whittle’s review of the Frankfurt School.
Two different Socialists agree with indoctrination:
Incidentally, while I do attempt to guide my kids, I do so by the Socratic method, not brow-beating.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Links (some from me, some from my Jarhead friend):
Biden Signs Bill Gates’ Pact to ‘Combat Future Pandemics’ – Slay News
Who the living F is Bill Gates so connected with that he has this kind of pull? It can’t JUST be money IMHO; just what info is Microsoft gathering?
—
Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s Explosive Court Testimony on COVID “Vaccines”(UPDATED) (aussie17.com)
Courtroom testimony – thus I infer under oath – censored by youtube. Because “misinformation”. Transcript at the link. Every time I want to believe that the censorship is ending, I see things like this. They’re determined to control your thoughts through the information you have available.
sHeEp BrAiN – Top Molecular Geneticist Warns mRNA Jabs are ERASING Memories & HIJACKING Personalities (substack.com)
There’s a longstanding joke about people being idiots. “You sound vaccinated”. Looking more and more like this might actually be a thing.
Multiple COVID Shots Linked to Higher Mortality Rates in 18- to 39-Year-Olds • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Non-sterilizing (does not stop infection, replication, transmission) vaccines: they knew (vaccine makers, vaccinologists) that if you MASS vaccinate into a population across age-groups, in the MIDST (substack.com)
It means that mechanically, there was NO way that the COVID mRNA vaccine could have ever even worked.
It was DOA. Day one.
—
‘Democrats Got Everything They Wanted’: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Hailed as House ‘Shadow Speaker’ After $95 Billion Ukraine Bill Passes (infowars.com)
Uniparty.
—
How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past – Watts Up With That?
Great graphs plus other info. More – destroying wealth and civilizations, in the name of climate:
The War On Cars | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero? – Watts Up With That?
—
Bayou Renaissance Man: Some inflation is nothing more than deliberate price-gouging by businesses
‘Something Will Have to Give’: IMF Issues Dire Warning to Biden Administration (westernjournal.com)
Economy sucks canal water. And this is deliberate.
—
U.S. Troops Forced Out in ANOTHER Humiliating Biden Diplomacy Fail. (thenationalpulse.com)
Remember, these are the people who said they were the experts – the “adults in the room” compared to Orange Man.
—
NYC Man Convicted Over Gunsmithing Hobby After Judge Says 2nd Amendment ‘Doesn’t Exist in This Courtroom’ – RedState
She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’
Police Website Reveals CDC Suppressing Defensive Gun Use Data – The Truth About Guns
—
Blaze News investigates: The truth about raw milk the government doesn’t want you to know: ‘Close to a perfect food’ | Blaze Media (theblaze.com)
I’m still leery, but at this point if “government” says X, I’ll default to believing NOT X until more data come in.
—
Surveillance Need Not Be Governmental – Liberty’s Torch (libertystorch.info)
In the UK. But doubtless coming here.
—
Smithsonian, America’s Top Museum, Worried it Can’t Hold Drag Shows Any More – The Lid (lidblog.com)
Our tax dollars at work. Related:
—
Trump is busy in New York dealing with BS “trials”, which is what they want (so he’s not out campaigning). Here are two articles (both by lawyers) showing that these charges are bogus, and the trial is a sham just designed to waste Trump’s time & money (and the taxpayers money also):
The lawfare against Donald Trump hits new heights today (substack.com)
Related:
https://www.declassified.live/p/another-defense-against-braggs-sham
Among all the bills being voted on (that give our money to foreign governments), one that slipped under the radar is the REPO bill, which aims to take seized Russian money and give it to Ukraine. Gee, let’s give some MORE money to Ukraine, I mean it’s not like we need it here, right? Also, it’s another way to “poke” the Russian bear. These people WANT to start WW3, and the American citizen can go to hell:
https://pomp.substack.com/p/geopolitical-chess-meets-economics
—
Major banks are being called on the carpet for de-banking Christian organizations. But the government is not stopping them. Imagine the hue & cry if they de-banked a Muslim organization:
Major Banks Debanking Christians | Armstrong Economics
Related:
Largest Christian University in America Gets Fined $37 Million. Coincidence or Targeted Attack? (dailysignal.com)
—
This short video (2 minutes) sums up 25 things that are actively being used to destroy America:
Diogenes’ Middle Finger: For Those Who Haven’t Been Paying Attention….. (diogenesmiddlefinger.com)
Related:
https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1782569668462477545
—
BRM with another good “you need to think about this” article. What happens when critical infrastructure goes down due to enemy action. And you have no water, no heat (or AC), no electricity, no access to banks, etc. And not for a few days, like after a big storm, but for MONTHS, maybe YEARS:
Bayou Renaissance Man: About that critical infrastructure…
Related:
Bayou Renaissance Man: More about our fragile global Internet
>>>>>=====<<<<<
So here’s a question: How was it that these were bought and handed out ahead of time?
Increasingly, Magic Eight Ball says NO.
I would love to go to visit Australia. Nope, not now.
Towards a permanent-majority voting block. They’ve been working on this for DECADES.
About the only thing I trust government to do.
YouTube still at it.
Unverified, but very possible. Slowly, slowly, slowly the constrictor tightens its coils.
Remember, conquest by migration & demographics – Hijra – is a real thing in Islam.
OOH, I am grateful America is supporting Israel. OTOH, it only shows that Israel MUST work to cut the financial dependency on America.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the Post:
Understand that I post this reluctantly; there’s enough Jew hate around as it is. “Circling the wagons” is a natural reaction. But if we, as a people, cannot and do not call out our own, others will take that as tacit approval. To take no action is an action in and of itself.
Grooming is real – after all, since LGBTQP don’t reproduce biologically, their ongoing numbers MUST come from other sources. And this denial by the ADL only fuels the fires of those who hate us for their perception that “all Jews” are for this. Like my open letter calling out pro-migration Jews, this too must be called out and criticized. Primarily, of course, for the children affected by this, but also to show that Jews are nowhere near united behind this perversion.
Just look at the open and outright denial – gaslighting – of what people understand is implicitly and obviously true through simple logic: that LGBTQP+ increases because of grooming and indoctrination.
What is “Grooming?” The Truth Behind the Dangerous, Bigoted Lie Targeting the LGBTQ+ Community | ADL
This calling-out-our-own applies not just to this, and to migration, but to the perceived unity in Jewish advocacy of Communism. Except:
Socialism and Passover: The Holiday Of Freedom – The Lid (lidblog.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate cleansers:
—
—
Been learning Morse code and trying to teach it to my kids (without much luck). I can send – very slowly – messages but would have to see them written down to decode them. Practice, of course…
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back on Friday for more memes. Same meme time. Same meme channel.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.
Amazingly, the colleges and universities where you think you would find the brightest thinkers of the next generation of leaders are dens of lemmings. Columbia, Yale, MIT, and Emerson College are some of these schools.
The media focuses on East Coast schools, but West Coast schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley are also protested. Thousands of young students are taking to the campus courtyards to chant, beat drums, burn flags, and harass their Israeli classmates. They are protesting against Israel and American support for Israel. They are supporting Palestine and Hamas. These are not spontaneous, organic gatherings of intelligent, well-informed students united by a cause. These planned and funded statements by wealthy outside forces using these students as pawns in their chess game against the establishment. These organizers stay anonymous in the background, but they all share one thing: they hate America.
Signs, audio systems, and tents are the obvious signs of financial support for these uprisings. Sad accounts by Jewish students tell of the harassment they are experiencing, but worse is the threat to their safety. These students are urged to leave campus and return home. The school administrators, campus security, or local police cannot guarantee the Jewish student’s safety. These targeted students are afraid to leave their dorm rooms, and if they choose to stay, they attend their classes remotely.
These protest groups are very similar to the Holocaust deniers. They refuse to admit that Hamas is a terrorist group or that these thugs invaded Israel on October 7. They do not recognize the 1,200 tortured and killed Israelites or the over 100 hostages held by Hamas. These students are jeopardizing their status at the institutes they are paying dearly to attend by condemning the global stands or connections the schools have. Obviously, few of these students investigated these schools before agreeing to become a community member. They wear hijabs or surgical masks to protect their identity. Many of the overzealous protestors are being arrested or expelled by the institutions. This lapse in decorum will have a lasting impact on their future.
Many of these student protestors show little knowledge of the people or groups they support or the history of the Middle East. These female protestors deny the horrendous treatment of women by Hamas, Hezbollah, and many of the countries surrounding Israel, where women have equal rights as men. These LGBTQ groups screaming “We are Hamas” do not understand they would be put to death by the terrorist group they claim allegiance to. Students at Yale sing Black Civil Rights hymns, conflating the two issues.
These protests are going to have the adverse effect that these students want. They are forcing the school administrators to swing the schools to the Right and away from the WOKE or DEI influences that have brought them to these crossroads. These student protestors are showing their immaturity in being sucked into these gatherings and their ignorance of the facts and truth about the issues. These protests will lose momentum and dissolve as more students face accountability for their illegal actions. Unfortunately, the effect of a lifetime of indoctrination will not change as quickly. These children have been compromised, and only life’s experiences will show them the errors in this Progressive philosophy.
The post Elite Colleges Show The Impact Of Lifelong Indoctrination appeared first on Granite Grok.
If the corporate media says it, the odds are good that it is misleading, an incomplete ‘truth,’ or a lie. But because they are so politically driven in their choices and coverage, you can almost glean the truth based on how hyperbolic their response is or how narrow their focus is.
The average winter temperature (Dec-Feb) in New Hampshire is about 2 degrees C warmer than the previous century’s mean. Wait, 2 degrees C? Why hasn’t the world ended? That’s a fair question.
Summer temps (Jun-Aug) are a hair over 1 deg C above the previous century’s average, and again, why hasn’t the world ended? Because they changed it to 2 degrees C, silly!
It could be that the world has ended and we missed it or that it has experienced larger swings in its history (it has) with little impact on surface life (also true) in ways that are effectively meaningless to a species (humans) who have mastered living in nearly any climate (which we have).
For centuries (millennia, truly), humans have found ways to live (often comfortably) in Deserts (Las Vegas and Southern California) and thrive, even above the Arctic Circle. In jungles, on dusty plains, and along the water’s edge. All without Al Gore’s coffee table books, Tom Steyer’s dirty coal money, the UN IPCC, or Governments laundering billions to generate scary “science” by bought-and-paid-for grant-hunting white tower proglodytes who otherwise would get nothing.
As I reminded folks here, this was always about economics and political science, not saving the planet.
A few degrees C means nothing. But if you’ve done an adequate job of grinding out successive generations of increasingly less intellectually agile Americans (public school), scaring them into giving up their freedoms (and paying for the privilege) for a declining lifestyle and opportunity – gets easier. That’s the Claimte Cult scam from Global Warming to Climate Chaos.
One continues large bowel!
The end of an interglacial is not a reason to pilfer future generations to fund anything, and “climate change,” despite all the column inches and your grandchildren’s tax dollars they throw at it, is not much of a priority to anyone (including Democrats, in the Biden economy). That didn’t stop the corporate media (dba: Democrat Communications Consultants) from making up a bunch of sh!t and throwing it at you. Last summer was the hottest summer on record, except it wasn’t, and so what? This year, we promise, they will say it is even hotter, and it might well be.
But last summer (Jun-Aug 2023), New Hampshire’s maximum temperature was one-half of one degree below the 20th-century mean.
You’d be right to wonder what all the yelling was about. Only thirty-three summers in the past 128 years had lower Maximums. I know. Why didn’t we hear about that? Probably because Mother Nature messed up drought season. We got a lot of rain. Oh, and the minimum temperatures were up (it didn’t get as cool at night as the 20th-century mean), but New Hampshire has had at least twenty summers with higher averages than 2023 going back to 1945.
Now, I cannot say for certain if NOAA has meddled with this data. They like to tweak the past and massage the present to create dramatic revelations for the corporate media to parrot. But, even with this data, 2023 was far from the hottest anything unless you mean steaming carts full of, you know what? And that’s a trend upon which we can rely. 2024 will be hotter than whatever it needs to be to excuse all the wasted spending on infrastructure that is neither cleaner nor better than what we had before the Climate scam.
One more point. I have no objections to wind or solar and never have if you pay for your own, and no handouts, subsidies, or incentives for the materials, installation, or power generated. Solar and wind for you (to get off the grid) are just okay by me whether we get climate truths or lies. You also need to cover its end-of-life costs (that should go for EVs as well (which should only be charged with wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear). These are green realities that, like the temperature hysteria fraud, would provide a very clear picture of what you would have to sacrifice to continue on the path these idiots have placed us on. People who have predicted nothing correctly and cannot prove that the warming they claim is catastrophic is any such thing.
It’s all BS, and 2024 will be no different, with one exception. The Cloward-Pivening “migrant” invasion has pushed climate concerns further down the list and could put Democrats in trouble in places they have had locked up for decades.
And no, I am not inferring that the GOP will successfully take advantage of that.
The post The Next Hottest Summer Ever Update appeared first on Granite Grok.
A recent post argued that NH taxpayers shouldn’t be ‘forced to fund irreversible surgeries for gender-confused kids.’
While I agree with that, I would note that Article 3 of the state constitution says that NH taxpayers can’t be forced to fund anything that doesn’t directly protect the rights of the people paying the taxes.
Look through the state and municipal budgets and see how much falls into that category. Very little. So why complain about these surgeries specifically?
If the GOP took Article 3 seriously and started working to defund everything that violates it, things like these surgeries would be defunded as a matter of course… along with DEI/CRT indoctrination centers, Title IX sports, porn in public schools and libraries, and a lot of other sources of agitation.
But to say, essentially, We like these violations but not those violations seems disingenuous.
The post Subsidies for Me, But Not for Thee appeared first on Granite Grok.
Joe Biden was on a three-city tour of Pennsylvania this week. He started in his hometown of Scranton, though I am not sure many in Scranton want to claim Joe as one of their own. You see, for all Joe says he is doing for his homeys, his lousy policies are costing the good people of Scranton over $800 per month to maintain their lifestyle from 2020. These folks, Joe, are not making $10,000 a year to cover your Bidenomics, but apparently, that has been scrapped. We are not supposed to mention your dynamic economic plan that proves each month that it is not worth the napkin you wrote it on. Tell us that good one about the bottom up and the middle out as those people are driving up their credit card balances to keep up with the rising cost of everything. The busiest person at the local gas station is the one raising the prices each day on the marquis. People in grocery stores take items out of their shopping baskets at the checkout to afford their orders. You are not raising all boats, Joe. You are sinking the middle class. It is painful to watch and experience.
Your green initiative to get us all driving battery-operated cars is a bust. No demand exists for these overpriced vehicles, even with us subsidizing the costs. There are images of vast parking lots of abandoned EVs in China. Tesla and Rivian both announced layoffs, Rivian for the third time in twelve months. The recharging stations you bragged about are not being built, so where did the billions go to fund them?
Your plan to forgive student loans is having a devastating impact on tuition rates. As colleges and universities see you passing tuition costs onto taxpayers, they seize the opportunity to blow the top off tuition rates. Nearly a dozen schools have posted tuition rates over $90,000, and dozens more work toward that number. What income will graduates need to justify a $400,000 student loan package?
Credit card debt is at a record high, and with interest rates over 30%, most people living on plastic will never see a zero balance. Your solution was to attack late fees. That $10 savings will go a long toward paying off the interest! Who is advising you on these weak, ineffective policy decisions? Karina Jean-Pierre?
The fact that you are spending so much time in Pennsylvania, a state you should have a lock on, tells us you know you are in trouble. Working overtime to put Trump in jail and to defame RFK Jr is not working for you. Your media ads focusing on your acuity prove you have lost a step or two mentally, and trotting out the Kennedy clan to back you and throw their cousin under the Biden Train was low. RFK will give Michigan to Trump and, thus, the election.
You are showing age and weakness at a time when America is looking for energy and strength. They are finding what they need in Trump. Seeing him outside the courtroom each day shows how you have weaponized your Justice Department to eliminate your opponent. It didn’t work, Joe. Your Justice Department, like the rest of your administration, is proving to be more WOKE than competent. With the Supreme Court braced to take the wind out of the January 6 sails, it will kill one of your most potent arguments against Trump. Your house of cards is crumbling, and no help from Obama, Clinton, or the Kennedys will keep it from crashing in November. Watching you go down will be fun and satisfying.
The post Night Cap: Hey Joe, Did You Ditch Bidenomics appeared first on Granite Grok.
Quick reminder that tomorrow (Wed @ 10am) is the Senate Committee hearing for HB1283, a bill to legalize assisted suicide. It will be in NH’s Legislative Office Building, room 103 (note room change from earlier).
Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to steve@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.
Please share this with friends or family you think would also be against legalizing assisted suicide.
You have several opportunities to stand up for the vulnerable among us by helping to defeat HB1283:
1) Pray that the Senate HHS committee and the NH Senate as a whole would vote down this bill
2) Register your opposition to HB1283 through the Gencourt website by 8am tomorrow morning (select Senate Health and Human Services, select HB1283, tell them “I Oppose this Bill”, and click “Continue”).
3) Email the Senate HHS Committee to tell them that you oppose HB1283. Their email addresses are: Regina.Birdsell@leg.state.nh.us, Kevin.Avard@leg.state.nh.us, Jeb.Bradley@leg.state.nh.us, Becky.Whitley@leg.state.nh.us, Suzanne.Prentiss@leg.state.nh.us, cameron.lapine@leg.state.nh.us
4) Testify in person if you are available tomorrow @ 10am in NH’s Legislative Office Building (33 N State St, Concord, NH), room 103.
If you do come in person, please do not wear yellow, as many of the pro-suicide community uses that to identify themselves.
5) Contact your own Senator: It’s not too early to call or email your own Senator, and let them know that you oppose state-sanctioned suicide. You can find their contact info here.
For Life,
Jason Hennessey
President, NH Right to Life
Key talking points on HB1283:
Points that may resonate more with Democrats:
The post Help Stop State-Sanctioned Suicide appeared first on Granite Grok.
It is unusual for a Democrat or uniparty stooge to say the quiet part out loud, but this isn’t new to Massachusetts. David Ismay, Charlie Baker’s undersecretary for Climate change (can’t be much of a ‘republican’ Gov. if you have one of those – and he wasn’t), said openly that they need to put the screws to everyone in the name of climate change.
He didn’t survive the heat (ironically, given his gig). Will this Masshole do the same?
It is Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt.
Using frank language rarely heard on Beacon Hill, Tibbits-Nutt weighed in on a series of major policy issues. She talked about how she would raise more money for transportation, with one option being the installation of toll gantries at the state’s borders with neighboring states. She promised to do more to address traffic fatalities by urging law enforcement to issue more speeding citations. And she said she would not support a layover facility for commuter rail trains as part of the I-90 Allston multimodal project, handing neighborhood activists a major victory.
Toll booths at the border is a great idea. One more reason not to go to Massachusetts. It’ll piss off all the commuters who live in New Hampshire but work in the Bay State, but that could be good for New Hampshire too. Incentivize working here instead. They’ll save on gas, tolls, speed trap tickets, T rate hikes (if you are brave enough to take the T). In other words, they need more money, and there’s nothing they are not willing to do you to get it.
“This [task force] is actually different because we’re not censoring it,” she said. “I’m going to talk about tolling. I’m going to talk about charging TNCs [transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft] more. I’m going to talk about potentially charging more for package deliveries, charging more for payroll tax — basically going after everybody who has money. And when I’m talking tolling, I’m talking at the borders. I’m not talking within Massachusetts.”
She added: “We’re going after all the people who should be giving us money to make our transportation better and our communities better.”
As if the Government could do any such thing. There’s no evidence of it. None. Higher taxes to pad school budgets have produced dumber kids. Milking trillions from Americans in the name of Climate change has only made electricity more expensive and less reliable (and the weather is still the same). The police budget has nothing to do with public safety. Voting for Joe Biden created division (inflation, joblessness, war) and not the promised unity. Nor has any sum of your dollars yet managed to solve transportation infrastructure issues. They spend it all, and things stay the same or get worse.
The only community that benefits is the one that pays her nearly 200k/ year salary. Those in and around ‘The Government get fatter and happier, protecting the politicians who keep adding more parasites to feed on the host (which is you).
TruthMonica Tibbits-Nutt is using the pretension that she’s being brave when she says, “she will not spend any time making decisions with the goal of hanging on to her job”—which is an excuse to hide decades of poor management, which can only ever be resolved with more of your money.
And lucky you, thanks to inflation and the Biden Economy, they are going to need a lot more from you to do so much less.
Update: After this post was written and scheduled, contrary to Tibbits-Nutt’s contention that she had her back, Governor Maura Healy did not. Not exaclty.
(Boston Globe) Governor Maura Healey, appearing on WBUR’s Radio Boston, called state Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt’s recent comments about imposing tolls for drivers crossing into Massachusetts “a very poor choice of words.”
“It’s not how we do things,” Healey told Radio Boston host Tiziana Dearing on Tuesday. “It’s not how we operate.”
I didn’t click through to the full article, but “poor choice of words” isn’t a categorical no to border tolls, as Healey hints at a need for nuance. That’s not how we do things? Okay, so maybe border tolls are at the bottom of the list, but where’d Tibbits-Nutt-job get the idea if they didn’t come up at some point?
It’s on the list.
Be great if someone leaked that to the press.
The post Massachusetts Is “Going After Everybody Who Has Money.” appeared first on Granite Grok.
From the Editor: We’d like to welcome the Conservatarain Exchange and Liberty Block NH to Grok Podcasts!
Disney has won its battle in a proxy way to remain woke against outsiders; liberals keep fighting; conservatives often accept defeat as final; do establishment leaders in D.C. succumb to more than just peer pressure? threats? should republicans engage in issues such as “income equality”—turn the issue against liberal jurisdictions? Attacks on free speech in Scotland, Poland; if Americans don’t fight for free speech the “parchment guarantees” will never suffice; winner take all of electors vs. apportioning them by district (current situation in Nebraska); should we care if blue states ignore SCOTUS?
Trump should join Abbott of Texas in ignoring SCOTUS on the “invasion” issue; does an oath to support the constitution require support of all SCOTUS decisions? Attorneys afraid of taking suits on the right and/or being disbarred like Eastman; why aren’t banks treated legally as common carriers? Biden’s Easter transgender visibility proclamation? Is government our religion nowadays?
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");
Rumble("play", {"video":"v4l5qz3","div":"rumble_v4l5qz3"});
The post The Conservatarian Exchange: Episode 200 appeared first on Granite Grok.
The presidential campaign of 2008 marked a turning point in America.
Millions of voters were electrified by the prospect of the first African-American president. Even one of Barack Obama’s opposing candidates seemed mesmerized by the moment: “I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
I mean, that’s a story-book, man.” But then, Joe Biden has always viewed everything in terms of race.
Yes, the election of America’s first black president was a watershed moment. Some believe it took too long to get there, but it was an inevitability.
There was another watershed moment, though, that most voters failed to notice. It was the first time that Americans elected a president who, throughout his life, had been steeped in socialist, Communist, and anti-American ideologies – a man whose value system clearly contradicted traditional American values. Voters chose to ignore Obama’s background and the people who helped mold his values – people like Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Jeremaih Wright. Those anti-American diatribes by Jeremaih Wright? No matter.
And when that self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” vowed to fundamentally transform the country that most Americans cherished, they didn’t seem to care.
With the country behind him, Barack Obama succeeded in transforming our country in ways no one could have imagined.
Under Obama’s administration, America became more divided, especially along racial lines. And Americans lost some of their national pride. Prominent sports figures began disparaging our flag and our national anthem. Disdain for police agencies started growing. Many in our country began to reject our capitalist system and the idea of American exceptionalism while embracing socialist concepts like redistribution of wealth.
But that’s ancient history.
Now, more than seven years after Obama left office, the man who served as his vice president wants a second term in the White House and an opportunity to finish their disastrous transformation of America.
During his 2019 campaign, Joe Biden was touted as a moderate candidate with traditional American values, an elder statesman committed to unifying the country. He’s proven himself to be anything but.
Who knows why Biden took such a radical left turn after his election? Many believe that he’s doing China’s bidding, thoroughly compromised by the millions of dollars the CCP quietly paid his family. Others suggest that he’s nothing more than a figurehead, a marionette controlled by radical leftist puppeteers – among them, perhaps Barack Obama himself.
Polls confirm that Biden is an unpopular president. He’s widely perceived as weak, addled, incompetent, and corrupt. Surveys consistently show that his policies are taking our country in the wrong direction.
Yet paradoxically, in a head-to-head matchup with Donald Trump, other data suggest that Biden stands a fair chance of reelection in November. That’s mostly because the propaganda machine of the Democrat Party and the liberal news media managed to convince so many Americans that Donald Trump poses a genuine “threat to our Democracy,” a threat to our very survival. Incredibly enough, they’ve come to believe that Trump’s “America first” agenda is somehow un-American.
Consequently, many voters now believe that even Joe Biden is a better alternative.
Biden pontificates about fighting for the “soul of the nation.” But there was nothing wrong with America’s soul before he and Obama began tampering with it. National pride – patriotism – wasn’t derided. It was seen as the glue that holds this nation, any nation, together. It was once an unassailable American value.
Other values that were part of America’s soul included freedom, equality, the right to privacy, individualism, personal responsibility, personal property rights, and a competitive spirit. Topping the list was a fair justice system. The Biden Administration has been systematically extinguishing them all.
America also once had a conscience – an uncompromising sense of right and wrong. Today they’re replacing that conscience with contrived radical concepts like social justice, CRT, DEI, and gender-affirming care. They’re doing it in defiance of our Constitution, using subterfuge and deceit.
In fact, given his many abuses of power, Biden would certainly have been impeached and removed from office by now, were it not for the blind support of congressional Democrats, his loyal apparatchiks.
That leaves it to the voters. Will they continue to blindly follow a path they know leads to self-destruction? Or will they finally say “enough”?
For the greatest threat to the Biden Administration is not Donald Trump. It’s an informed electorate, endowed with common sense and the ability to think independently.
Yes, the economy, immigration, the border, abortion, and national security are all important issues in this election. But in November, voters will have to decide who we are as a nation. They will decide whether to preserve the soul of America or extinguish it forever.
The post Last Chance to Save the Soul of the Nation appeared first on Granite Grok.
Democrats in the State House were parading around this week with a banner insisting, “If you make a mess, you clean it up!” Yeah! Big talk! They think this should apply to oil companies regarding climate change (another story I’ll get to soon), but apply that message to themselves regarding the colossal property tax tsunami of a mess they’ve made for us. Well, not so much.
As far as property tax relief for Vermonters goes, the banner reads, “If you make a mess, create a ‘task force’ of usual suspects to ‘look into it’, keep the money flowing to your political cronies, and hope the voters have short memories and deep pockets.” Hey, it’s worked in the past! But I’m getting the feeling it’s not going to work as well this time. They’ve been successfully boiling the frog (us) for a long time but got greedy, turned up the heat too fast, and the taxpayers are ready to jump out of the pot.
Vermonters worried we are about to be taxed out of our homes come July are now being told not to expect any sort of relief for at least three years while they study the issue. News flash: we can’t afford the bill this year! Fix your mess NOW.
Vermont’s current property tax explosion/crisis is driven by the fact that we spend more money per public school student than almost every other state in the Union by a long shot. After this year’s spending spree, we might just be number one. The official “weighted student average” is $23,299, but if you divide the total $2.5 billion education budget by the 80,000 pre-k to 12 kids in the system, the number is over $30,000.
This latest $200 million budget gap that is the reason for the 20 percent year-over-year average property tax (and/or other taxes) increase is primarily the result of overspending on:
What’s the solution? Here’s my proposal:
Short term, cap individuals’ property tax increases to a level no greater than inflation (currently 3.5%). If what that generates plus the other revenue streams to the Education fund (100% of the sales & use tax, 25% of the rooms & meals tax, lottery, etc.) doesn’t cover the cost of school budgets, the delta should be made up through cuts to other programs – unfunded education mandates such as the $30 million free meals programs or cuts to general fund programs with the revenue shifted to education. I’d suggest starting with all those programs that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize EV purchases, solar panel installations, etc. Those are luxury programs, not basic government services.
No new taxes! We are taxed enough already, and taking even more of our money just out of different pockets – as the Democrats are doing — is not tax relief. It’s making the mess that much bigger.
Long term, restructure the system to first establish an education budget amount and a tax rate Vermonters can afford, and then figure out how to spend that amount in the most efficient and cost-effective way to achieve superior student outcomes. Every other state in the Union, bar one, has figured out how to spend less on education than we do, and a lot of them are getting better student outcomes to boot. Every independent school in Vermont operates this way, and they get better results for less money. How about we learn from them instead of trying to shut them down?
A big reason we are in this mess is because our lawmakers created a public education financing system in which we throw everything the special interests say they want into the shopping cart and then tell the taxpayers to pay for whatever the cash register rings up. This dynamic has to end. Unfortunately, it is the dynamic that Democrats in Montpelier, under the influence of the VTNEA, Superintendents Association, and Principals’ Association, are doubling down on.
The multi-year study process they are opting for in lieu of meaningful reform is not being set up to control costs and provide property tax relief. It is going to “figure out the policy, vision and the system of where we are going and then how do we fund it….” That’s no different from what we are doing now. It’s the problem. It’s the reason for the mess. Clean it up.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.
The post Democrat Supermajority Has No Interest in Solving the Property Tax Mess They Made appeared first on Granite Grok.
I just thought of something: how about testing when starting school? Then Some kids may start in 1st grade and some may start in 2nd grade or even third. Then every year they take their “Proficiency Test” as long as they test to the next grade off they go, if not they get held back. If they test ahead of their class again, they could skip a grade again if the parents agree.
And to be honest, the grade levels do not have to be too difficult, just a wide field for each grade as a general test of that average grade level. I believe a lot of children would end up skipping grades, saving funding for everyone.
We want to thank Ken Goodall for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
If a student starts getting held back, then the school would work with the parents for tutoring, or if the student has medical or mental issues, then they could be set to “Special Needs,” and each county could have one school set as “Special Needs.”
I see a lot of issues with this for sure, but I believe it could work. With the battle going on with public, charter, Religious, and private schools, this could be a viable option.
Every Change Starts With The First Step, and we need to take the first step before it is too late.
The post Food For Thought on Schooling appeared first on Granite Grok.
If you’ve driven through any part of Goffstown or Pinardville, you may have seen the “Hate has no home in Goffstown” signs. At first glance, they seem well-intentioned and a wonderful idea. But upon further investigation, they are actually breeding much hate and division within the community.
The signs were originally designed after a neo-Nazi group from outside the community placed literature in a few residents’ driveways. It appeared to be completely random and an act that every member of the Goffstown community condemned.
The extreme leftists in our town, who never let a virtue-signaling opportunity pass them by, designed these signs immediately and sold them to whoever wanted to jump into the narrative that our town now has a hate problem because of this random act.
If hate truly has no home in Goffstown, then why was a complaint made to the zoning board after a fiscally conservative resident spoke up and presented a tax cap at the town’s deliberative session? Immediately following that meeting, an extreme leftist filed a complaint to the zoning board about the conservative resident’s chickens and coop (that have been in place for five years with no issues) and that resident is now having to go through the arduous and tedious process of fighting with the town for a variance.
We want to thank Shanun Carey for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Some of the folks with a “no hate sign” in their yard were the first to announce that any parent or resident who stood up at a School Board meeting against inappropriate sexual materials on a Middle School library whiteboard should be put on a ‘public town wall of shame.’
Recently a parent spoke up at another School Board meeting about the fact that her son was not drinking water all day to avoid using the boys’ bathroom. He was doing this because he felt uncomfortable that a young girl, who now identifies as a boy, was now using the same boys’ school bathroom. Immediately following the meeting a complaint was made to that boy’s parent’s place of employment.
44 people in our town signed a petition for a tax cap warrant article. Once the extreme leftists got a hold of that information, all 44 of those names and their addresses were released on a Facebook group with the intent to get people to harass and shame those specific residents.
Two conservatives recently ran for Library Board of Trustees in our local election. This really bothered and triggered another extreme leftist, who happens to be our Select Board Vice Chair’s wife, and she requested the candidates’ actual library cards from the library. After receiving them from the Library Director, she proceeded to display them (including their patron codes) publicly online in order to intimidate and call them out.
Doesn’t seem very kind, caring or inclusive to me. It sounds more like when you don’t fall in line, you will publicly pay the price.
The most recent incident of the ‘no hate’ movement in Goffstown happened when a local veteran-owned business received a visit from a member of the local LGBTQ+ group. This person entered the business during working hours to demand (in front of customers) that the business owner hang an LGBTQ+ flag and stickers in his shop window during the month of June (Pride month). When the business owner politely declined (not wanting to be political and cause any discomfort to the many different views and beliefs of his wide range of customers), he was then called hostile and berated as being part of the problem in our town. She said that thanks to him, she and her wife are unable to walk the streets of Goffstown safely. Oh, those vicious Goffstown streets. It’s a tough town to grow up in. With our beautiful town square, the resident-only Glen Lake, beautiful rock water features, friendly waves from local shop owners, drivers stopping so you can cross the street, even when you’re not on the crosswalk… it’s a wonder any of us survive here.
Hate has no home in Goffstown unless you disagree with the vocal minority. Then hate is acceptable and even encouraged.
Someone make it make sense.
The post Does Hate Really Have No Home in Goffstown? appeared first on Granite Grok.
As the 2024 election season gets underway in earnest (although it has actually been going on for quite some time already), it is probably useful to look behind the curtain of (a) political “consultants” and (b) political contributions through organized groups.
It seems to have become fairly standard and expected for political candidates in our state to hire a so-called political consultant, supposedly to assist in their campaigns. Some holding themselves out as political consultants are based in our state, while others may be based in Washington as if being based in Washington is some type of badge of honor when clearly it is not.
The usual arrangement with a political consultant typically takes the form of a written contract that is supposed to spell out the duties of the consultant as well as how the consultant is to be paid. The typical payment arrangement is for a monthly payment during the campaign, often with bonuses available if the candidate prevails in the primary and another in the general election.
Further, many consultant arrangements provide for the consultant to handle the candidate’s appearances, advertising, and handouts such as brochures, palm cards, signs, and the like. But there is often an insidious factor involved in which the consultant is able to mark up the charges from outside vendors and/or receive commissions from those vendors, all of which ends up coming out of the campaign coffers.
Does it really make sense to agree to such arrangements when there are vendors, some based in NH, such as Spectrum from Manchester, who can provide all printed materials, mailings, and signs without payment of commissions or markups? Many of those services come with sound political advice without extra charge.
Finally, it is amusing to read campaign news releases announcing that a particular political consultant has been hired for a campaign, especially when examining the history of campaigns in which the consultant has been previously engaged. Some of them have a long and well-known history of being the consultant for campaign after campaign in which the candidate lost, as if to say, in effect, that my history of handling many losing campaigns in the past makes me especially qualified to handle another losing campaign now.
The most successful campaigns seem to be ones in which the candidate is very hands-on without regard, resorting to so-called consultants who seem to exist simply to extract money from campaign coffers without producing wins.
That being said, because of the size of our state and with very limited conservative media outlets, the more successful larger races (i.e. other than for state rep) that are inherently expensive often end up relying on larger campaign contributions from out-of-state donors and groups, and if a so-called consultant can actually produce such contributions in a meaningful way, perhaps they might actually be worth something.
And so now, we turn to campaign contributions.
A famous Dem politician once reportedly said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Unfortunately, how true!
Although state representative campaigns can be run effectively without huge expenditures, once the political stage moves into larger districts or statewide, whether for the state senate, the exec council, the governor, and our federal senators and reps, the required campaign expenses increase dramatically.
Anyone reading this has probably been solicited for campaign contributions by a variety of sources: some directly by the candidate campaigns and others by groups that seek to “bundle” the contributions and allocate them to who-knows-whom.
If you make a contribution directly to the campaign of a candidate you favor, you will have a pretty good idea of where your money is going. But if you contribute to a group, although the group may claim to be supportive of candidates you support, you lose effective control of where your money ends up.
And to further the problem, many of the groups soliciting contributions incur significant administrative expenses for staff, as well as, in some cases, payment of “commissions” to officials of the group who purportedly bring in contributions. It is not unusual to see at least 10% of a contribution go to payment of such a commission.
But some groups, including some political action committees, are run entirely by volunteers without any paid administrative staff.
So, if you are considering making a political contribution, keep in mind that your contribution will be most effective if you contribute directly to the campaign of your chosen candidate. However, if you choose to contribute to a group, before you make that contribution, inquire as to whether the group pays commissions to anyone and whether it manages to keep its administrative expenses very low.
The post Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain! appeared first on Granite Grok.