Thursday • July 3 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XXVII
Manchester, N.H.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “took a week off” without anyone noticing, so the White House is running damage control. How could the Secretary of Defense disappear for a week? Because, like the White House, he’s not running it?
It is sad and mildly amusing in a tragic way, but this response to that is just comical.
AP Headline: ‘White House orders Cabinet secretaries to notify when they can’t perform duties after Austin illness.’
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House chief of staff on Tuesday ordered Cabinet members or secretaries to notify his office if they ever can’t perform their duties, as the Biden administration, reeling from learning of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s surprise illness last week, mounts a policy review.
You don’t have to be paying attention to know that no one on Biden’s cabinet can perform their duties. At all. Ever. Unless by duties you mean the dereliction of – they’ve got that nailed. Pete Buttigieg is their leader and the poster child for expective level seat-warmers. Antony Blinkin at least has experience, not that he’s used it to defend the American People or fulfill his oath of office.
In other words, the White House should expect a lot of correspondence. Wait. No, they won’t. This cabal of misfits isn’t capable of knowing how bad they are, which means you, the people, will need to help them out. Pen a little note or send an email. Dear White House, in response to your request, I would like to inform you that [insert Secretary’s name] can’t perform their duties.
Sign it, Epstein’s mother. No, not that Epstein.
The post White House Says It Now Expects Cabinet to Notify Them If They “Can’t Do Their Job” – Are They Trying to Be Funny? appeared first on Granite Grok.
In today’s Townhall.com Tip Sheet, there is an article by Sarah Arnold entitled, “DNC Turns Its Back on the New Hampshire Democrat Party.” The crux of the article is a recent letter sent by the DNC to Ray Buckley, informing him that the Democrat NH Primary will not be recognized as a delegate selection event.
Quoting the article, quoting the letter, “The NHDP must take steps to educate the public that January 23rd is a non-binding presidential preference event and is meaningless and the NHDP and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.”
Steve has been writing and sharing on this topic in recent months, and the articles about the attempt to get the GOP to change the rules are worth re-reading for their takes.
What this means in practical terms is that you will get more Democrat Leftists changing their registration so they can vote (a.k.a interfere) in the Republican primary. Most of those changes will be to “Undeclared” so they can easily vote in the State Democrat Primary in September. I have been warning about this for years, as have many others.
We want to thank Bryan Williams for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
It’s time for NH Republicans to grow some vertebrae and ditch the open primary system that allows this interference – get rid of same-day party selection for Primaries and require voters to register with a party.
I believe NH law allows this to happen up to 14 days before an election – the resolution in front of the NH GOP was 30 days, but in my opinion, it really should be 90 days.
You will also be cheered by a large cadre of Checklist Supervisors who currently have to process all those party changes and change them back after every primary election. It was always a painful task when I served in that role, especially when there were hotly contested primaries driving large turnout.
The post Republicans in NH: Be Warned! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Trans rights activists assert that all of the major medical associations support what’s euphemistically labeled “Gender Affirming Care.” True, but these associations are ideologically corrupt, and none more so than the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) gender care policy was written by one man, Dr. Jason Rafferty. It reflects his ideological beliefs about gender identities, not medical science. This radical policy does away with the scientifically supported approach of watching waiting where children get counseling instead of chemicals, according to a lawsuit by a detransitioner against the AAP and Rafferty. Instead, the policy brushes aside research to establish an affirmative care model that calls for the immediate embrace of a child’s gender identity and advocates for social transitioning, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries.
Related: Detransitioner Sues American Academy of Pediatrics for Fraud and Conspiracy
The policy labels “watchful waiting” therapies that help children become comfortable with their own bodies “unsuccessful and deleterious” and “outdated;” however, the sources the policies cited don’t support that claim, as noted in a fact check by Dr. James Cantor, then the director of The Toronto Sexual Center. “These documents simply did not say what AAP claimed they did. In fact, the references that AAP cited as the basis of their policy instead outright contradicted that policy, repeatedly endorsing watchful waiting.”
The AAP’s claims about the alleged harms of “watchful waiting” have been repeated by Dartmouth Health Endocrinologist Francis Lim-Liberty, who accused clinicians who don’t immediately affirm children’s gender identity of “transphobia.”
The AAP’s unsubstantiated claims are the basis for activists and the medical industry’s insistence that children won’t outgrow their dysphoria and learn to be comfortable with their own bodies. “A person’s gender identity is not something that can be changed,” GLAD lobbyist Chris Erchull testified at the State House. “It is fixed at a very young age. That’s what the experts tell us.”
The AAP’s policy doesn’t recognize that depression, trauma, and autism might be at the root of a child’s gender confusion. It says that “if a mental health issue exists, it most often stems from stigma and negative experiences rather than being intrinsic to the child.”
The AAP has shut down debate about its controversial policy. They failed to respond to Dr. Cantor’s fact check by either reviewing their policy or writing a rebuttal. They also turned down two panels to discuss the dangers of the affirmative care model at their annual conference proposed by Finland’s leading gender expert, Riitakerttu Kaltiala. She said that the AAP is “actively hostile to the message my colleagues and I are urging.”
In 2021, the AAP’s directors refused a popular proposal to discuss the risks and benefits of the gender-affirmative care model at their annual conference. They also refused to allow the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine’s (SEGM) request to have an exhibition.
In August, the AAP announced that it would conduct a systematic review of the research, but AAP CEO Mark Del Monte announced its foregone conclusion: “He emphasizes that policy authors and AAP leadership are confident the principles presented in the original policy . . . remain in the best interest of children.”
The extent of the AAP’s ideological corruption was on full display at their 2023 annual conference. Child-transing activist Ilana Sherer held a workshop on gender-affirming care where she encouraged her fellow pediatricians to discuss gender identity with prepubescent children. She also said that pediatricians should teach children to call vaginas an “innie” or “front hole” and call a penis “junk” or “strapless.” At a 2018 conference, Sherer recommended that pediatricians “rubber-stamp” minors’ requests for hormones.
We need to stop putting so much faith in physicians, according to detransitioner Katie Anderson:
We got here by treating doctors like high priests and the medical industry like a church. We gave doctors the right to try to carve people up to try to make them look like the opposite sex, but we’re not even honest enough to say that.
The post Rotting from the Head Down: The American Academy of Pediatrics Gender Policy appeared first on Granite Grok.
So I’ve been told that nut job gun hater Rep. Meuse was the one who assaulted Rep. Jonah Wheeler for his departure from the “enemy camp plantation” by voting for a ban on gender reassignment for minors. I’m hoping security camera footage is easily available to see for myself.
Keep in mind that Meuse is one of those “we must do something about GUN violence” loudmouths and has no problem with resorting to empty-handed physical violence when the situation suits him. He is not alone. Just do a search on Altschiller and the late Katherine Rogers, both former reps known to use the same modus operandi when they see fit.
We want to thank Julie Smith for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
But there’s very little that a non-sea-coaster can do about Meuse beyond condemning him in the public square. Let’s talk about someone else. Someone who achieved statewide notoriety in seeking Scanlan’s job last time around. Someone who has yet to weigh in on Thursday’s incident at the state house. That someone is Ms. Melanie Levesque, a certified hothead, according to Grokster Beth Scaer.
Related: Bi-Partisan NH House Vote Bans Transition Surgery for Minors
She happened to be in office during two other events in history. One of them was then-Executive Councilor, extreme leftist, and governor wannabe Andru Volinsky, calling Ryan Terrell a token when he voted to reject the Damn Emperor’s nomination of him to the Board of Education in 2020. Also in the same year and in Boston, infamous local agitator Monica Cannon Grant made some very unkind epithets against Rayla Campbell for having a white husband. That did not receive as much Granite State media attention as Volinsky, but doesn’t it stand to reason that you-know-who would have a personal interest in condemning MCG’s slur?
And what about the mistreatment of Eddie Edwards, who has a right to due process just like the rest of us? I have yet to see any comment on record from you-know-who.
Accusations of racism dominate council meeting over nominations of Edwards, Terrell
Does anyone else recognize a pattern of “selective silence?”
The post The Pattern of Selective Silence appeared first on Granite Grok.
With all this talk about common sense manifesting as legislation and law, you’d think Vermont would have gotten a handle on its rising homicide rate. Last year, they had 25, unprecedented for that tiny state in our big modern era, but a few more progressive laws later, and it’s up to 27 in 2023.
Vermont’s homicide rate last year continued an upward trajectory, topping numbers not seen in nearly three decades. While authorities are still trying to solve several open cases, they’re also trying to understand what’s behind the recent surge.
Vermont State Police say for the second straight year, homicide numbers topped 20.
“We’re prone to have some violence like all states do, but in a small state with a low population, it certainly has a greater effect on people when they hear about it,” said VSP Maj. Dan Trudeau.
2023 saw 24 homicide investigations involving a total of 27 deaths. The violence took place across across the state, from Brattleboro to the Northeast Kingdom.
Over the last seven years, the state’s homicide numbers ranged from 17 in 2017 to as low as 11 the following year. Since then, they have been on the rise. “We’ve typically been in the low teens to mid-teens, maybe for an annual sometimes lower than that. It’s certainly concerning,” Trudeau said.
Of the 27 homicides, more than half involved the use of a gun. And of the cases investigated by state police, seven are known to be drug-related, involving both suspects and victims from out of state.
I’m not sure what weapons were involved in the “other half” of the homicides, but rest assured, the brilliant minds doing business as the Vermont legislature will focus on disarming law-abiding gun owners to address this continued surge in criminal violence.
The Media could also use some retraining in the art of Democrat run decline. What might the readers think if you were to write that nearly half the homicides involved a weapon other than a firearm?
Related: Night Cap: Amid Rising Homicides, Vermont Says Its Red Flag Law is Model for the Nation
You still get the dig on guns, but it almost sounds like there was a rise in murders resulting from attackers who might have been stopped or deterred by the presence of a firearm. I admit I am stretching the potential and giving too much credit to the sort of people who pay attention to these outlets, but evidence and history suggest both the problem and the remedy.
Rising homicides will not stop no matter how many common-sense gun laws you pass. It’s not firearms. It is the culture. One-party Democrat rule results in higher taxes, declining quality of life and services, rising crime, misery, and more murder. Look anywhere they have had decades of uninterrupted rule. San Francisco, LA, Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, NYC, the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Detroit, or Memphis.
Vermont’s future is some version of that with a twist. The cities will lead the decline, which will spill into rural areas, and in a state as small as Vermont, there aren’t too many places to hide from it, especially after they take your guns away.
Vermonters must internalize the reality of prolonged Democrat decline and grasp its purpose. You can’t live with it or them. They will not leave you alone, nor will the effects of their policies. You have to try to take your state and local government back. Yes, that will make you a target, but better a target of left-wing hate than the rising violence that perpetuates in their wake.
The post Vermont Surpasses 2022, With 27 Homicides in 2023 appeared first on Granite Grok.
We all remember the most famous, albeit infamous, speech of Biden’s Presidency in front of an eerie red backdrop, flanked by two marines in dress blues. He told America we were on the brink of disaster. Not a natural disaster, attack from a foreign power, or millions of illegals crossing our Border.
No, what Biden was warning Americans about were MAGA Republicans led by the evil Democracy destroying Donald Trump. This speech was delivered just before the 2022 Midterms and must have worked. A dreadful Blood Red Speech avoided the predicted Red Wave. Will it work in 2024 to put Joe Biden in the White House for four more years?
I genuinely hope not.
As much as Biden talks about the potential damage from another Trump Presidency, we have the reality of the damage done by a Biden Presidency. When a President usually kicks off his re-election campaign, it is with a recap of his accomplishments and a positive vision of the future. We heard neither from Joe Biden on Friday. Friday has always been the black hole for news, and that is when politicians announce things they want to slide under the radar. So why did Biden choose a Friday for his kick-off? Probably hoping it would evade radar because it was a dark, dreary, and divisive speech intended to instill fear rather than hope in voters’ minds.
Biden could not tout his accomplishments on the national or international fronts. The Administration has finally abandoned Bidenomics as the term did not work, nor have his economic policies. We still have high inflation rates destroying household budgets, along with high interest rates that are destroying the American Dream of home ownership. He cannot talk about the Southern Border, where four million illegals are invading our country yearly. We no longer have a sovereign America. He cannot speak about Fentanyl, which is still killing 100,000 young Americans every year.
He cannot talk about a safer world when we still have images of a failed evacuation of Afghanistan, the Middle East at war, and a crisis in Ukraine that sees no end. We are losing ground to China as Iran and North Korea get closer to Nuclear arms. We have ended our energy independence, which makes us weaker internationally.
Biden has stressed diversity over competence in his Administration, and this WOKE philosophy has permeated business and education to the demise of both. There is nothing Joe Biden can point to in his first term, nor tell us how his second will be any better. His message is not hope but fear, and through a weak delivery, alternating from whisper to raised voice, he misses the mark. He can threaten the loss of Democracy from a Trump term, but he has shown us how our liberties have suffered under Joe Biden.
Biden finished his speech and turned to his right, looking dazed and confused. Doctor Jill hurried to his rescue, taking Joe by the hand and guiding him from the stage. This vision is not what America thinks about when we look at our President. Joe Biden’s best days, if there were any, are in the rearview mirror, and the most humane thing Americans can do is send Joe Biden off to retirement. If Jill doesn’t face the obvious with her husband, then we, the voters, will do it for her.
The post Biden “Campaign” Launch Sets Tone – Fear! appeared first on Granite Grok.
For decades, the US Military has been the undisputed #1 most powerful force on the planet. Its soldiers have a presence in nearly every state and landmass on the globe. There are hundreds of military bases all over and there are likely many more covert military installations throughout every area of the world, as well. The Heritage Foundation conducted an in-depth analysis of the US Military’s capability and readiness in 2023, which should be very encouraging for true patriots.
The post US Military Still #1, More Prepared & Powerful Than Ever! appeared first on The Liberty Block.
There are a lot of reasons why Claudine Gay should never have been running Harvard, but her testimony before Congress isn’t one of them. I went back and watched as much of the hearing as I could stomach, and what I heard all three university presidents saying was: Anti-semitism is bad, but speech is different from action.
I guess I shouldn’t be a university president either because I agree: Anti-semitism is bad, and speech is different from action.
I’m on board with Justice Hugo Black’s definition of freedom of speech, which I think is the best ever offered:
Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
And I’m on board with John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech, which I also think is the best ever offered:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
I was hoping that one of the university presidents would ask Elise Stefanik to point to the particular passage in the Harvard, Penn, or MIT code of conduct that she thinks forbids someone from saying something because someone else finds it hurtful, hateful, horrible, or heinous.
In defense of the idea of making people simply shut up about certain subjects, I frequently hear the old and inaccurate claim that ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.’
In fact, you can do that, and we know that you can because Penn Jillette does it during every Penn & Teller show. It’s not a problem because no one does anything about it. The audience doesn’t get up and stampede out of the theater.
You can yell it, even if there’s no fire, so long as nothing bad happens as a result. There’s no criminal punishment for the speech itself. If significant damage occurs as a result, there may be civil liability. But that’s not a free speech issue. That’s a tort issue.
But if you think there are some ideas that are just too awful to allow people to express them, here’s a question you might ask yourself:
How many times would you have to hear someone call for the eradication of a nation… or for any other action that you currently find reprehensible… before you would actually engage in it?
There’s no number high enough, is there? People could speak to you all day about the most heinous ideas, but in the end, it’s just air being pushed around (or marks being made on paper).
So speech isn’t really the problem, is it?
Calling for something is speech, and being able to call for it without being punished is free speech. In contrast, actually doing the thing is not speech, free or otherwise. We lose sight of that at our peril.
And the way we lose sight of it is for individuals to think: Sure, I can resist bad ideas, but other people are too stupid to.
Calling for the eradication of Israel is speech. Parachuting into a music festival in Israel and killing hundreds of people is not speech. Launching rockets into downtown Tel Aviv is not speech. Detonating a suicide bomb on a bus in Jerusalem is not speech.
Is this not clear?
If you think someone is wrong, the proper response is to explain why he’s wrong, not to silence him.
Once we decide that ‘calling for the eradication of a nation’ is out of bounds, it’s a short step to saying that ‘calling for the elimination of our democracy’ should be out of bounds, and for many people, that’s the same as supporting Donald Trump.
Is this really a road we want to go down? I agree with Black and Mill that it is not.
Speech is speech and not action. Action is action and not speech. Blurring the line between the two is a ‘cure’ that is orders of magnitude worse, in the long run, than any ‘disease’ that it might be thought to cure in the short run.
Not too long ago someone was convicted and imprisoned for telling someone else to kill himself. It’s worth asking yourself who you would say was responsible there? The person who just said some words? Who expressed an opinion? Or the person who decided to end his own life and then actually ended it?
If a person is so impressionable that simply being told to do something will override his critical faculties about whether to actually do that thing, perhaps that person should be a ward of the state, and kept 24/7 in an environment where what he sees and hears is carefully and completely controlled. (And he certainly shouldn’t be allowed to vote.)
Logically, the idea that some thoughts are too dangerous to be expressed by anyone because they may have the wrong effect on someone is identical to the idea that guns are too dangerous to be owned by anyone because someone might misuse them.
They’re both examples of Mark Twain’s characterization of censorship as telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.
Recall that the heart of the Bruen decision was that we should afford the Second Amendment the same levels of respect and deference that we accord the First Amendment.
You like gun control? Pushing for speech control is exactly how you get more of it.
The post Night Cap: You Like Gun Control? Push for Speech Control. appeared first on Granite Grok.
Senator Jeannie … or, perhaps, her “staff” … went on an X (Twitter) harangue about the January 6th “insurrection.” As part of the harangue, she misquoted Ben Franklin, substituting “democracy” for “republic” in the famous admonition, “a republic if you can keep it.” Of course, neither Jeannie nor her staff could even tell you what the difference between a democracy and a republic is, so they have no idea of their gaffe.
Same for the “reporters” and “journalists” who bring us the “news” in New Hampshire … none of them could tell you what the difference between a democracy and a republic is either. And moreover, their role as they see it is to maintain Jeannie and her ilk in power, so even if they understood the gaffe, they would never mention it.
And, by the way, this “insurrection” appears to have been led by at least 200 FBI “assets”:
Ep. 61 This the smartest, best informed account of what actually happened on January 6th. pic.twitter.com/U9yCWRVJSd
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 6, 2024
The post Is Senator Jeannie That Ignorant … Or Is It The Democrat-Youth Running Her X (Twitter)? appeared first on Granite Grok.
The United States team won gold at the World Junior Hockey Championships in Sweden. The lads were very excited, smiling and singing as the national anthem played in honor of their victory. If you watched it on ESPN you’d have never known they were proud to be American.
These photos from @usahockey’s #WorldJuniors gold medal win are unbelievable pic.twitter.com/0Ohgmw5Sua
— B/R Open Ice (@BR_OpenIce) January 7, 2024
Proud enough to smile and sing.
No kneeling, no purple hair, no selfish political displays, just world champs honoring their flag https://t.co/HwmVodPQRL
— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) January 7, 2024
No kneeling, no purple hair, and no selfish political displays, which must be why ESPN chose not to air it. It might also be the reason why so many Americans won’t watch ESPN.
The post ESPN Cuts Away to Protect You From Young Patriotic American Athletes Proudly Singing the National Anthem appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Democrat National Committee (DNC) is pissed at New Hampshire Democrats. The locals have been acting like votes Democrats cast on our Jan 23rd primary will mean something. The DNC has demanded they stop and the manner in which they’ve done that violates the state’s voter suppression law.
Here is the DNC’s Letter to the New Hampshire State Democrat Party.
Plenty of Dems on the NH Primary BallotThere will be about 20 Democrats on the Jan 23rd primary ballot, but no Joe Biden, and as far as the DNC is concerned, none of this counts. It’s not sanctioned and, from their perspective, is meaningless. But by demanding this be advertised, they’ve tripped over New Hampshire State law.
This is hilarious because the DNC is right. As a private corporation, it can set its own rules and schedules and define the terms of engagement. The Democrat “primary” in New Hampshire is – to them – meaningless. Nothing about the outcome will have any effect on how the DNC pretends to practice Democracy in pursuit of its nominee.
The DNC has complete control over what their primary means, but they cannot tell voters not to show up.
But the NH AG is also right. This is still a real election with real candidates, and you cannot actively insist voters not participate. The DNC is breaking the law and demanded that the the State Party do the same.
The AG is watching. If the DNC or NHDP do anything that looks like vote suppression, they’ll bring the full weight of the state to bear to prevent election meddling and voter suppression. Whatever that means, which typically isn’t much, but in this instance, I think the AG would be looking to draw blood (as in large fines).
Here’s the full letter from the AG demanding the DNC cease and desist.
NH AG Letter to NDC voter suppressionThe post Breaking: Attorney General Tells Democrat National Committee to Stop Violating NH Election Law! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Let’s talk about an important piece of legislation coming up in committee this week. It is House Resolution 25, scheduled for a public hearing in Legislative Administration on Wednesday, January 10, at 10 am, in the Legislative Office Building, Room 301-303. Here is a cliff notes version.
The New Hampshire Constitution is a legal contract called a Trust Indenture.
John Locke is one of the founding fathers of law who heavily influenced the framers of our Constitutions. He wrote in “Two Treatise of Government,” Chapter 15 Section 171, “Secondly, political power is that power which every man, having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property…”
New Hampshire Supreme Court, in the case of Wooster v Plymouth, stated, “The second [part of NH Constitution] is, in general, a grant of powers, made by the people to ‘magistrates and officers of government, who are declared (in Part 1 art. 8) to be the grantors’ agents.”
We want to thank Rep. Nikki McCarter for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
In The New Hampshire Constitution, Article 84 Oath of Office says, “….accepting the trust…” While neighboring Vermont says in their Constitution Article 6, “That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”
So, from the above writings, we see the intent of the framers was for the Constitutions to be Trust Instruments. These are contracts consisting of an agreement between parties called Grantors, who are the Beneficiaries, and Grantees, who are the Trustees. They have a fiduciary duty to fulfill contractual obligations that are binding in a legal way, meaning the Grantors/Beneficiaries can prosecute Trustees for Breach of Trust.
Trust Instruments are built on fundamental principles, like this Maxim of Law, which states: That which is granted or reserved in a certain specified form must be taken as it is granted, and will not be permitted to be made the subject of any adjustment or compensation on the part of the grantee.
Ex. parte Miller. 2 Hill (NY) 423; Bacon, Max. 26, reg.4.
The above Maxim reinforces the concept that only what is expressly written is granted authority in Part 2 Form of Government, and what is not expressly written is forbidden by way of omission. For example, let’s say I have a Trust Fund. Then let’s say that I create a Trustee position in that Fund, which comes with a written description of the duties of the position. The written duties are: “Trustee will identify cash flowing multi-family real estate properties, and acquire them with funds from the trust, and in the name of the Trust.”
Let’s say I offer you, the reader, the position as Trustee in my Trust Indenture and offer to compensate you $2000.00 for each multi-family you acquire. You agree to be my Trustee, swear oath, and away we go. A month later, we meet for coffee, and you roll up in a Ferrari. I say, “Wow, sweet ride, where did you get the money for that?” You reply, “I bought it with funds from the trust.” I say, “Ummm, where in the Trust Indenture was it written that you could use funds to purchase a car for yourself?” You reply back to me, “Well, it’s not written that I can’t use funds to buy a car for myself.” I think you can see that buying the Ferrari is a Breach of Trust and that a Court will not be siding with you.
The same is true of our state constitution. The express written terms of NH Constitution Part 2 Article 32, for instance, nowhere contain any written grant to add in voting machines. The addition of machines, by any other method than the method the constitution itself prescribes in Part 2 Article 100, is a Breach of Trust. House Resolution 25, if passed, will return us to the Constitutional Provisions as they were before our elections process was altered by way of Legislative Enactment rather than by way of proposing a Constitutional Amendment to The People, requiring a ⅔ majority at the Biennial Elections to pass.
If you care about your power as one of the people under New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Articles 8, 32, and 38, about the oath of office that all legislators take, and about how we are your contractually obligated Trustees, your support at this hearing is encouraged.
You can read HR25 here. Click on the Bill Version as Introduced on the left side of your screen.
You can submit online testimony here.
Representative Nikki McCarter Belknap 8
The post Restore Trust … in Elections appeared first on Granite Grok.
A lot of things happened as a result of the pandemic. The most critical thing in my mind was how the world was divided. Not by race, religion, age, sex, occupation, or party registration – despite many demographics working to divide us into tribal groups. There was a rise in global awareness of us versus them.
Every sort of person across the world confronted a planet-wide campaign of mass propaganda and coercion. This unified attack on bodily integrity, individualism, and choice, driven entirely by fear and mob tactics – though many were sugar-coated as empathy-entertainment – was almost impossible to ignore. The world was segregated into two classes without regard to any other feature of our lives.
One side demanded blind compliance; the other asked questions and defended the right to ask. The more the vaccine mandate side pushed, the more questions the other side wanted answered. Anyone who dared to respond outside the approved context was labeled a denier and their thoughts and words as misinformation.
Amidst this, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) grew a monster called The Trusted News Initiative (TNI). Its publicly stated goal is to control the news. To control what you see and, therefore, say and think. To define the truth you are permitted to believe while shushing conversations that wander outside their proscribed lines.
TNI members work together to build audience trust and to find solutions to tackle challenges of disinformation. By including media organisations and social media platforms, it is the only forum in the world of its kind designed to take on disinformation in real time
By “to take on” through censorship and cancel culture while you promote the agreed upon ‘voice’ through a global echo chamber regardless of the truth.
Much of the pandemic ‘science’ this global media cartel advocated has been debunked. The people asking questions were right; those who labeled them deniers or peddlers of misinformation were wrong. But still, they soldier on. In true New Speak (Orwell’s newspeak) fashion, they continue to coordinate across media (mainstream and social) to brute force the preferred language of the globalists into the mouths and minds of everyone.
Its advocates ape the agreed-upon authoritative messaging as its political arms legislate the new media dissidents and their audience out of business. And it is working. Only America has a First Amendment to protect free speech to which the balance of the Western World plays lip service. At the same time, the worst characteristics of Democracy limit the idea of open political expression and debate. The mob rule of the 51% seems more likely to side with them than us.
In its most basic form, Democracy is the right to say no. Yes, you won the election, but no, you cannot rob me of my right to disagree or speak my mind. But, those who dare to question continue to be suppressed by those who share the same messaging as the Globalist industrial complex – that cabal of elites, governments, and corporatists who are the ‘Them” in the Us vs. Them.
The not-so-much politically correct as politically correcting.
Without regard to skin color, faith, occupation, income, sex, gender, age, or any other characteristic, we must rally to defend the human right to be wrong so that we prevent them from securing a monopoly on deciding what is right. How do we do that? Keep asking questions. Challenge the political dogma and its orthodoxy. Refuse to allow your speech to be corralled or compelled. Defend free speech and expression. And yes, support independent media – but not just by donating, reading, or sharing. Put pressure on mainstream or corporate media, especially at the local level, to answer for their disinterest in the independent-minded dissident view.
Media mistrust is at an all-time high, but local media still enjoys some measure of credibility. Does it deserve it? Are they just local versions of the politically correcting ‘Them,’ or do they wander off the plantations defined by groups like TNI? Do they or have they reported the dissenting side? Through most of COVID, they did not, even after months of credible challenges that were correct.
So, what makes you think they’re not doing the same thing with the rest of the news, and are you prepared to call them out on it?
We are, and we’d love your help.
The post Information Fascism: Politically Correct Means “Politically Corrected” appeared first on Granite Grok.
And so the week begins. Cue the Vorlon:
Take heart – there will be both a Wednesday and Friday Edition. Last week’s Friday Edition.
Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:
If you are remotely concerned about the world and where we’re headed, please do consider looking at yesterday’s SURVIVAL SUNDAY.
Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Because they’re not used to independent thinking and standing on their own. They’re herd beasts.
See this video (link only):
2024- Insurance Companies Must Know Something Big, & Violent IS Coming Our Way – YouTube
Excellent!
Tell me who your friends are, I know who you are.
You really have to question the sanity of people who smear those who protest the stabbing of children.
Education is not a bad thing. It’s the arrogance that often goes with education that’s the real problem.
The more I see of the Epstein list, the more convinced I am the above is 100% exactly right.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
We all know that smartphones are dangerous, privacy-wise. Your electronic-laden car may be as well – and far more than you think.
Your Car Stores Your Text Messages – Law Enforcement Can Retrieve Them Anytime, Following Federally Rejected Lawsuit | The Gateway Pundit | by Stefanie Ladner, The Western Journal
When you sit in a “digital car” you consent to being recorded and personal data sold « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
We’ve all known that Alexa et al are always listening:
What’s next? Cameras in your house? Oh, wait:
Nearly a Third of Gen Z Favors the Government Installing Surveillance Cameras in Homes | Cato at Liberty Blog
Surveillance outside. Surveillance inside. And don’t forget the obsession of Globalist Yuval Harari – surveillance under your skin. And in your brain, for even your thoughts are becoming transparent to being viewed as technology improves:
Mind-Decoding Technologies Raise Hopes (and Worries) (undark.org)
And a last note about privacy:
Artificial Intelligence Is Allowing Them To Construct A Global Surveillance Prison From Which No Escape Is Possible (endoftheamericandream.com)
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Animosities run deep, and long. For example, looooong before the Sunni / Shia rift, the Arabs and Persians hated each other. And still do.
That’s an interesting observation of a second meaning of the word.
I’m still betting some pretext will be found to – at least – mandate massive mail in voting. Assuming we even have an election due to an “unprecedented crisis” that requires a… *cough* “temporary” suspending of elections.
Depending on, I might have some conversations… but I strongly suspect someone flying the stars and bars would at least have an open mind.
Hell yes.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Special link section:
These are mostly links sent to be me by a Jarhead friend of mine; commentary is (mostly) his. Though I’ve tossed in a couple of my own links with my own commentary. This is, we both concur, the kind of news that needs to get out more widely. Link first, comment / excerpt after:
Former Bill Gates vaccine scientist predicts sharp population decline: “up to 30-40% in highly vaccinated countries” (chemicalviolence.com)
In the comments, someone wrote that perhaps global warming and climate change are cover stories for mounting COVID jab deaths and what they mean for the global population.
“It will be blamed on climate change, the Russians or Chinese, white supremacy, etc. and the ‘elites’ will walk away as heroes (in their own eyes),” this person wrote.
Another wrote that with so many wars now occurring, the truth about all that Bossche is speaking of “will be buried.”
“The war and the associated censorship will be used to hide the bodies,” said another. “They will say people died from ‘COVID’ or ‘war.’”
—
Consumers Are Rejecting the Great Reset | The Epoch Times
People are finally starting to wake up to the “great reset” non-sense and saying: NO!
—
The USA’s Army of Illegals – Vox Popoli (voxday.net)
Related:
EPA Is Buying Millions of Dollars Worth of Military-Grade Weapons (independentsentinel.com)
Possibly related to the above, Vox Day writes about how we have a foreign army of at LEAST 1.5 million men ALREADY here in the country, courtesy of the Biden administration’s open border policies. And the many federal agencies that don’t use guns (like the USPS) that have been buying guns and ammo for the last decade. Who will use all those guns? The speculation here (and I agree with the premise) is that the leftists will arm these illegal aliens with the stockpiled guns to subjugate the American citizens.
—
Biden Says US Troops Will Fight Russian If Ukraine Loses | Armstrong Economics
Biden is already saying that the US will be forced into war with Russia. Why is that? Well, what better way to distract the American people from his failed policies than by becoming a war president (with war powers) and having our young men & women killed for a stupid cause?
—
The U.S. Department of Defense Has Been Engaged in Biowarfare Against the American People This Entire Time – POLITICAL MOONSHINE
Related, but from a year ago:
The Department of Defense and Its Biowarfare Against the American People: Contracts and Evidence – POLITICAL MOONSHINE
Here’s an article that lays out the evidence that the DOD was using Covid-19 as a “bio-weapon” on the US populace. I have not vetted the evidence myself yet (time ever presses), but it’s a pretty strong case.
—
Well Being: Dietary Supplements – by Robert W Malone MD, MS (substack.com)
Big Pharma is trying to get congress to regulate ALL health supplements, forcing smaller firms (who cannot afford all the fancy approvals and/or paperwork) to go out of business. Meaning that Pharma will control that market too. And who knows what they’ll be adding to those too?
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the post:
Now, I’m not saying that all was completely “clean” and lust-free. I’m sure there were back-room encounters. But look at the outfits; the girls in modest dresses, and the boys with jackets and ties. Compare that to an outfit I saw this summer of a teenage girl with, basically, a sports bra, massive midriff exposure, and yoga pants.
We’ve lost something deep in the popular culture.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate Cleansers:
—
—
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back Wednesday for another edition. Same Meme Time. Same Meme channel.
Please do consider buying me a coffee.
Buy Me a Coffee
>>>>>=====<<<<<
The post MONDAY MEMES appeared first on Granite Grok.
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
Four score and seven semesters ago, our board brought forth on this great campus a new leader conceived in equity and dedicated to the proposition that all women are to be believed – unless they are black, apparently.
Now, we are engaged in a great culture war, testing whether this campus or any university so conceived and so diverse, can long endure. I was met on the great battle-field of this intolerant patriarchy. I have come to dedicate a portion of my scholarship, now a final resting place of those who gave me their loosely transcribed intellectual property as duplicative language that my doctorate might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this in solidarity.
But, in a larger sense, I cannot dedicate – nay consecrate – nor even hollow – this ground. In other words, there is not a shovel big enough to bury the past when your work is publicly documented. The brave men and women and non-binary people, living and dead, who are committed to the struggle of not plagiarizing, have consecrated it far above my poor power to add or detract a citation here or an attribution there. The world will little note, nor long remember what I wrote here, assuming these words are mine, but it can never forget what I did. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who submitted it for peer review have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that we are committed to our truths that we hold to be self-evident. That all Ivy League presidents are not created equal because of white supremacy, no matter how great the endowment by their alumnus, in the pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one President, me, to dissolve the political bands which has connected she/her with a university and to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate and equitable station to which the Laws of Nature and the State entitled me via Title IX and the one about Civil Rights, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Womankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel to the Separation or be fired for ethics violations as my attorneys suggested would happen if I didn’t resign. So be it, amen.
As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days and try to remember what my grad-pappy once told me. He said, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” Or my cousin Snarf Snarf, who said, “Words are just words until action actually starts. But actions speak louder than words, but at the same time, words speak louder actions because sometimes it’s the right thing to do.” Very cool.
I’ll never forget these words, please don’t forget mine.
In closing, I would like to remind everyone of the great calling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave us when he said, “Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you.”
Sincerely,
Claudine Gay
The post Bananas Exclusive: Gay Resignation Letter appeared first on Granite Grok.
Let me begin by saying this was not easy. There were many excellent comments on a wide range of topics across nearly every piece of content we published last week. But as they say in the Movie Highlander. There can be only one.
A maxim they then messed with because of profits, but they would not be the first or last to damage an idea with a franchise.
For our purposes, there can be only one winner each week, but there can be many quality comments.
Before I announce the winner this week, I’d like to thank all the commenters like NHNative, gramps, Ian Underwood, Patricia A Arsenault, Agent Liberty, Nitzakhon, 1776Mall dot com, Kimberly Morin, Steve Earle, Bowana, Manny, Dragon, David S, noraNH, Darkoss, Mike Remski, Jatin Jones, Geraldo E V Bentley, and many more. Many more. We’re happy to have you and hope you spread the word and invite others to join you here.
Picking a Comment/Commenter of the WeekI opened a new note in Evernote to store the stuff I liked for review later, and it filled up quickly. I will add that I did not receive many recommendations from the audience or commenters for nominees for best comment of the week. I got one. If you read something that truly impresses you, please email it with a link to steve@granitegrok.com. It will weigh on my decision, which – we should get to.
This week’s winner is Ian Underwood.
There are a lot of reasons why Gay shouldn’t be running Harvard, but her testimony before Congress isn’t one of them. I went back and watched as much of the hearing as I could stomach, and what I heard all three university presidents saying was: Anti-semitism is bad, but speech is different from action.
I guess I shouldn’t be a university president either, because I agree: Anti-semitism is bad, and speech is different from action. I’m on board with Justice Hugo Black’s definition of freedom of speech:
Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
And I’m also on board with John Stuart Mill’s explanation for why this is so important:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
I was hoping that one of the university presidents would ask Elise Stefanik to point to the particular passage in the Harvard, Penn, or MIT code of conduct that she thinks forbids someone from saying something because someone else finds it hurtful, hateful, horrible, or heinous.
By the way, here’s just one of the many reasons why Claudine Gay shouldn’t be at Harvard, let alone running it:
Ian had several comments in that same thread that were runners-up, and the competition for the win across the week was excellent. Ann Marie Banfield, Ornery Nurse, NHnative, Dragon6, Stan Ding, and a few others were finalists this week.
Keep up the great comments, and you could be next, and thank you to everyone!
Do ‘Grok Commenters Have More Fun? – Join the conversation and find out. You could win free stuff!
The post Our First “Comment” of the Week Winner! appeared first on Granite Grok.
The first meeting of the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee in 2024 consisted of a round-robin series of members sharing their priorities and wish lists for the new session.
While these wonderful folks who brought you the Clean Heat Carbon Tax in 2023 have even bigger plans for your wallet this year (more details to come later), the “priority” that jumped out was one of Senator Dick McCormack’s (D-Windsor) that they just need to do a better job of explaining to the public that what they are doing isn’t terrible, awful, no-good policy.
“I am not happy,” says McCormack with stern disappointment rippling through his countenance, “with where the public seems to be on what we’re doing. I get constituent calls telling me that we’re wrong to try to raise people’s energy costs.”
Hmm. Maybe one conclusion to draw from these calls from the people who elected you is that you are, in fact, wrong to be passing laws that raise people’s energy costs – that they can’t afford to indulge your ego-driven, save-the-planet god-complex fantasies and you should listen to, respect and represent that perspective in the State House per your job description as an elected official in a representative democracy.
Alas, no. This is not the lesson learned here. As Principal Skinner of The Simpsons might conclude, “Am I so out of touch? No, it’s my constituents who are wrong.”
The problem McCormack sees as needing to be addressed here is that the local yokels are just too ignorant and in the dark about what great things he and his fellow Democrats are doing for them. “I don’t think the public knows that. I don’t think they believe that.” (Well, they don’t, and they shouldn’t, so score one for us!) McCormack’s solution: Work on doing a better job of “how we present the case.” To which I say, go for it! Please.
The irony here is that McCormack himself admitted that he didn’t understand how the Clean Heat Standard law worked, called it a “Rube Goldberg” contraption, but voted for it anyway. (Here’s the video). So, pro tip, if you want to be able to explain to your constituents how a law you passed is supposed to help them, you might want to understand how that law works, what it costs, and how it gets paid for. You didn’t do that. Your colleagues actively and aggressively refused to do that work, which looks, well, kinda shady. Like maybe you’re trying to hide something from us. But now you want to be trusted and, sorry for chuckling, praised? Yeah, no.
McCormack is upset that the public views his and his party’s energy policies from the perspective, “Should the elitists in electric cars be allowed to force real people to spend all that money on their yak yak yak.” Yak yak yak I assume is shorthand for the hundreds of millions, running into billions of dollars, in subsidies for other people’s EVs, weatherization projects, renewable energy boondoggles, etc. and so on down the very long list of pork projects these folks are, in fact, forcing us to spend our money on.
Sigh…. To some extent here I regret having to pick on Senator McCormack because he committed the sin of speaking up. I will give him credit for at least thinking he wants to do a better job of explaining legislation to constituents, as that is a noble aspiration – so long as you’re being honest about what you’re selling.
This is better than the Committee Chairman, Chris Bray (D-Addison) who – not for nothing in his job outside the statehouse is a PR professional who founded the company Common Ground Communications – has done everything in his power to stop any meaningful discussion from occurring about cost or other impacts on real people as a result of these policies. Silence is a communications strategy too.
In response to McCormack’s desire for more and better public communication, Bray said, “It’s hard to have conversations on the topic in part because it’s such a large and amorphous [unintelligible] that people end up thinking near term, close to home. What is it costing me this week? Voting with your wallet as opposed to saying we have a big thing to tackle as a state, as a nation.” Which reveals two things:
1) Bray doesn’t want to make the case to the public because he thinks we’re too stupid to understand or buy into what he thinks is the genuinely important priority (Chris Bray Saves the World with your money! as opposed to you being able to pay your heating bill that was due last week). And, 2) He knows Vermonters are correct in our understanding that these policies are extremely costly, and the more this reality is discussed publicly, the more people are, in fact, going to vote with their wallets – and not for him.
Bray also asked McCormack if he could cite any examples of communicators who have done a good job of explaining why these “green” boondoggles that line the pockets of Party donors at the expense of taxpayers, fuel buyers and electric ratepayers — but let’s be honest have no actual impact on climate — are somehow good for the folks footing the bill. McCormack answered, yes! “I’ve heard it done well many times, but I’m not sure the public bought it.” No, the public didn’t buy it because, unlike you, they actually do understand it.
This recalls a wise insight from advertising guru Bill Bernbach, “A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it’s bad.” Which is why I predict Senator McCormack’s New Year’s resolution to do a better job of explaining to his constituents what he and his colleagues are really up to in Montpelier will evaporate pretty quickly. These are bad products, and the faster people learn about them, the faster they will fail.
My resolution is to make sure that happens by keeping the light shining bright! Happy New Year!
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 State Senator Does His Best to Paraphrase Principal Skinner’s “No, it’s The Children Who Are Wrong” appeared first on Granite Grok.
The WHO (World Health Organization) took center stage during the COVID pandemic as the global coordinator of effective response. Questions about the organization’s proper role – and competence – preceded and now survive the COVID-19 crisis. Was the WHO effective and apolitical in its response, and can it be trusted with its global medical preeminence?
Though bathed in a patina of trust, health agencies have long proven that they can fall victim to the human frailties of error, bureaucratic lethargy, political bias, and hubris. Post-COVID-19, many national interests are pushing to expand the WHO’s authority and funding even more, viewing its faulty responses to the pandemic as justification to allocate more money to shore up those failures. Others take a contrary view, asserting that the organization’s shortcomings during COVID-19 demonstrate intractable problems with no global solution.
Who Is the WHO? The WHO has fared very well post-pandemic, increasing its gross revenue by some $300 million in 2022 to $4,354,000,000 (including $739,000,000 from the United States). As more questions about the COVID virus response are raised, including Wuhan lab origins and potential adverse effects of vaccines, the global jury is still out as to whether the WHO was rescuer or bumbler. Concerns about competence preceded the pandemic. A 2016 article noted:“Public health specialists, non-governmental organisations and some of the WHO’s biggest donors say the organisation is unwieldy, poor at coordinating responses to epidemics, and too thinly spread. And increasingly it struggles to set its own priorities because many of its donors give it money earmarked for specific projects.
“Some experts inside and outside the organisation say those flaws mean the WHO’s lead role in global health is now at risk.”
Many stakeholders have tried to parlay the COVID-19 debacle into an even more significant future power base for the WHO. The organization is pushing to expand its powers, funding, and global oversight of member nations under the pretense of being better positioned to respond more effectively to future pandemics. Questions about virus origins, gain-of-function research, lab safety, vaccine efficacy, and the appropriateness of quarantining healthy people (and children) have caused many legislators and citizens to pause.
Indeed, the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a December 13 hearing titled “Reforming the WHO: Ensuring Global Health Security and Accountability.” Americans must ask: Is the federal government seeking to press the WHO on its competence, or politically rejuvenate it using faux hearings to bolster its legitimacy?
A key question is whether the WHO can ever be indeed “independent” from the winds of national politics. History suggests not, including during the recent experience of COVID-19. The WHO presents itself as an objective medical team that “… encourages the strengthening and expansion of the public health administrations of member nations ….” But that airy-fairy ideal ignores the realities on the political ground.
Myanmar, Syria, and the WHO While Myanmar oppressed minority ethnic groups, the WHO worked with its central government, “exacerbating existing political tensions.” In Syria, Brown’s Political Review wrote, the WHO’s well-intentioned efforts aggravated that nation’s civil war:The Wuhan WHO? Similar concerns were raised when the Wuhan virus began its spread. In an article titled “How China Deceived the WHO,” The Atlantic observed:“WHO’s failings in Syria are not strictly in the public health sphere, as its cooperation with the Syrian government played an indirect role in shaping the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian government has pursued a military strategy that targets the health of rebels …If WHO were more willing to work with Syrian rebel groups to achieve positive health outcomes, it would avoid playing into Assad’s military strategy.”
Gaza Strip and Abortion The evidence the WHO is not independent of political pressures can be seen in its recent proclamations about Gaza. Recounting a litany of health crises in the Gaza Strip, the organization does not address civilian casualties in Israel while engaging in political statesmanship:“… when the pandemic now consuming the world was still gathering force, a Berkeley research scientist named Xiao Qiang was monitoring China’s official statements about a new coronavirus then spreading through Wuhan and noticed something disturbing. Statements made by the World Health Organization, the international body that advises the world on handling health crises, often echoed China’s messages. “Particularly at the beginning, it was shocking when I again and again saw WHO’s [director-general], when he spoke to the press … almost directly quoting what I read on the Chinese government’s statements,” he told me.”
“[The WHO] calls on Member States, donors and international humanitarian and development actors to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and to ensure the allocation of human and financial resources in order to urgently achieve these objectives.”
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is enormous, but is inextricable from the (unmentioned by the WHO) attacks on Israeli citizens. The organization’s pronouncements make that conflict appear one-sided and implicate Israel in Geneva Convention violations. Did the WHO rally resources for Russian civilians as well as Ukrainians?
The WHO also endorses abortion, transgenderism, “equity,” sex education, and questions whether age of consent laws should be adjusted to permit minors to consent to sex despite existing protections. This mission creep now extends to every facet of human life: Human “health” touches everything, and so the WHO has expanded its purview far beyond what was contemplated at its formation in 1948. More voices are calling for restraints on the powers of this organization, even as global efforts are underway to use the failings of the COVID-19 response to grant it even more power over sovereign nations.
The post Night Cap: Who Trusts the WHO? appeared first on Granite Grok.
One of our oldest legal concepts is habeas corpus. (‘You must have the body.’) The basic idea is that you can’t detain someone indefinitely without showing cause why he should be detained. It gives the accused a right to challenge the accusations against him in court.
In a world without habeas corpus, you could be picked up by the police (or by the FBI), and placed in a cell somewhere without ever being given the chance to be told what you’re accused of, to talk to an attorney, and so on. You could sit there for years — or maybe forever — without ever having your day in court.
It’s not a world most of us would want to live in.
It’s not a big jump from habeas corpus to what those of us who don’t speak Latin might call habeas convictus. (‘You must have the conviction.’) The basic idea is that before you punish someone for committing a crime, you have to convict him of committing that crime.
In a world without habeas convictus, you could be fined, imprisoned, or deprived of your property — or prevented from running for office — without ever being convicted of committing a crime of which you’re accused.
Again, it’s not a world most of us would want to live in. If you’re familiar with Lewis Carroll, you might remember this exchange from Alice in Wonderland:
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’
That’s the world we’re heading for now — the world that Colorado’s Supreme Court, Maine’s Secretary of State, and a lot of others would like to live in.
The way we get there is by ignoring the importance of setting precedents. If you’re familiar with A Man for All Seasons, you might remember this exchange between William Roper and Sir Thomas More:
“So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
“Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
“Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Whether we support him, oppose him, or just don’t care at all about him, we should all be protecting, not Donald Trump, but his rights under the law… for our own safety’s sake.
The case that SCOTUS will be taking up regarding Trump’s ballot eligibility actually is about the 14th Amendment, but not the part that people are focused on. It has to do with the part that says
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
That is, SCOTUS will be considering two questions:
Can you be punished for a crime without first being convicted of it?
Can you be convicted of a crime without first having a trial?
It’s amazing that these questions even have to be adjudicated. But if the Court decides that the answer to either question is yes, then God save us all… because the law will no longer be able to, having been cut down to deprive the devil — in this case, Donald Trump — of its benefit.
The post Habeus Convictus appeared first on Granite Grok.
Like everything else in the 21st Century America, the news cycle has evolved. This evolution has been happening for decades as we watched the slow death of print newspapers to digital versions. Still, even on a cellphone or tablet, the American attention span is inadequate to read news stories.
Most people are satisfied with the smallest, most digested version of the news possible. Headlines are enough for most, though they will never have enough info to discuss the topics of the day. For the young, let’s stipulate under 40, X, Instagram, or TikTok is enough, as long as the reel is short. Regardless of the importance or impact of a new story, a happening is only viable for a few days, and then people move on. Something new has happened and is pinned to the top spot. That old story from two days ago has been moved to the archive. No longer does it fall below the fold or to page 6, but to the archives to live unopened forever. This dynamic is a shame, as some stories need to be played out until the epilogue.
Lahaina and East Palestine are two stories that should not have died. The people in these two communities, separated by half a globe, have been impacted in such a way that they may never know what it is to live an everyday life. What happened to these folks was not of their doing. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. East Palestine was the victim of the aging railway that traverses their simple town in the heartland of Ohio. A train carrying a combination of toxic chemicals that, to pronounce them, would sound like a Kamala Harris word salad oratory derailed and dumped its poisonous cargo into the land and water of East Palestine and rendered it unhealthy for years to come. Land was rendered useless as front lawns were turned into toxic waste dumps. Creeks, streams, and even well water made dangerous and undrinkable. These people have lost the nest egg they lived in and will need to find a new place to start over. It has been over a year since the tragedy in East Palestine, and the folks who remain are still waiting for a visit from Joe Biden. Promises left unfulfilled. These folks committed a mortal sin in Biden’s eyes by voting for Trump. They are not important to this President.
Lahaina in Hawaii is similar, but this town was leveled by fire. The blaze was not an accident but was caused by neglect by the local power company. By not performing preventive maintenance on power lines, they created a spontaneous spark and inferno that erased Lahaina from the map. Biden did visit Lahaina, but aid is slowly arriving for these folks, and estimates are that it will be 5-7 years before their homes will be rebuilt. Who can imagine putting their lives on hold for half a decade? No answer is needed.
The East Palestine and Lahaina events were front page, lead story issues for a week or so, a lifetime in the media world. The reporters and news crews soon tired of the story, and something new and shiny caught their attention. I am not calling for videos of scorched land or dead fish floating on tainted water to lead every news hour, but we must not forget these tragedies and their victims until their lives are back on track. These are our brothers and sisters, and, but for the grace of God, it could be us living in a cheap hotel room with only memories of a life we lost. We can continue living our lives, but we must continue to pray and support these folks until they enjoy the same life we wake to every morning.
The post Victims Of A News Cycle On Steroids appeared first on Granite Grok.