Yeah, my plan is to save this kind of information for Monday’s but Conservative Treehouse just mentioned this CBS/YouGov poll and it had two surprising data elements to it.

It seems that political outsider Vivek Ramaswamy has impressed enough people that by Chris Sununu’s 5% polling measurement threshold hold, he’ll make it onto the debate stage:

 

(click to embiggen)

 

As always, Sununu’s own words about setting THE threshold in making it to the debate stage:

Hangover: An “Evergreen” statement by Sununu himself on low-rated wannabes:

Mr. Sununu also warned minor candidates not to carve up the field.

“I think there’s a lot of hope and opportunity for good candidates to get in, drive the message where it needs to be,” he said. “But the discipline is getting out, too. The discipline and saying, ‘Look, you’re only polling at 5%, you got to get out.’ We don’t want a crowded field here.”

While Ramaswamy is not Top Tier yet (that would be Trump and DeSantis), he has now launched himself into Tier 2 territory with Pence and Haley. No small feat in my eyes this fast and for being an unknown.  Given his schedule and outworking everyone else in the field to get there, he’s also willing to take on the Progressives on their own platforms. (And helped to knock out Don Lemon, The Self-Righteous Pontificator, in the process). But is almost pitch-perfect with what he is campaigning on.

If you look at the actual poll, “Fights for people like me” is a top item at 94%, and the majority of “likely GOP Primary Voters” are just shy of being the majority in this poll at 49% (with 24% only Trump and 27% NOT considering Trump).

I have to admit, I’m watching Ramaswamy closely (as if you couldn’t tell). No, I’ve not picked a candidate yet as I haven’t heard them all yet; I am that prototypical NH voter that has to look them in the eyes a few times.

So that’s the first data element. The second one?

Chris Sununu wasn’t polled. At all.  Zippo, Nada, Nein, Nothing.  Not even a mention. Zero % (or a DNF  – Did Not Finish if you prefer).  Not helpful in reaching 5%.

 

The post Chris Sununu Presidential Poll Watch – Bonus Edition appeared first on Granite Grok.

In the Midwest, they have tornado sirens to warn of imminent danger and destruction. Those sirens are not fear tactics. They are there to save lives. People across the state are trying to do the very same thing in regard to preventing marijuana legalization (HB 639).

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

Marijuana is a drug, a plain and simple fact. THC is the active part of the marijuana plant that gets people high. Today’s marijuana products can have THC levels as high as 99%. Higher levels of THC can lead to addiction and mental health psychosis. Regular use of marijuana products can lead to a list of medical conditions.

HB 639 to legalize marijuana in the state is bad for our children, aging population, pets, and communities.

Marijuana legalization is a bipartisan issue. It does not matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. Drug use does not pick a party. Addiction does not care about who you vote for.

Thank you to our representatives and senators who do their homework, listen, and understand that marijuana is available for people with qualifying medical conditions and they know that it is decriminalized here, meaning that no one is being arrested for a personal amount of marijuana.

Marijuana is here already. You can smell it in buildings, town halls, the grocery store, the library, and, as scary as it is to think about, in cars driving by.

Legalizing marijuana will only increase access to and use of this drug in its many forms. Most people have no idea that marijuana forms now include dabs, edibles, waxes, shatter, oils, and products appealing to children. In 2022, 19 children under the age of five experienced marijuana poisoning from these products. This is a fact.

Do you think the marijuana industry cares about our children, our pets, or even our senior citizens? These are the populations that will be most affected by allowing full legalization of marijuana in our state.

Do not be fooled by the promises of money. The money will look good at first, but then, after a year or two, the money goes away, the rules get weakened, and chaos ensues.

What will persist are the issues that are everyone’s problem. Drugged driving crashes increase, car insurance rates rise, children and pet poisonings go up, health care costs rise, more young people use marijuana, substance misuse treatment, and mental health care centers’ wait times lengthen, and emergency room waiting times increase for everyone. That is a long list of expenses that will not go away!

Do you think New Hampshire’s already overworked and understaffed healthcare system can afford this?

We hope that most people do not want our high school students to have more access to marijuana. But that is the very result a House member said he was hoping for to a Raymond Coalition For Youth student who is 16.

The student wrote to members of the House asking them to vote no on HB 639. She explained how readily available marijuana already is in high schools across the state and the challenge it presents in the learning environment. The lawmaker’s response was shocking: “Marijuana is a very safe drug with essentially no overdoses in adults. You noted how easy it is to acquire in school. I think that is beneficial as it leads to less alcohol consumption.”

It is hard to fathom that an adult, never mind someone in a leadership position, would say something like this to a high school student. Alcohol and marijuana are equally dangerous. This comment speaks to the need for better education about this dangerous drug to not only children but adults too.

Most citizens do not want marijuana legalized, but newspapers and news stations in this state rarely cover substance misuse prevention information and awareness events. They come out when people are dying, overdosing, or are a public nuisance. Substance misuse prevention is not commonly a front page or top of the newscast story, but prevention is definitely the reason we do not have more of them.

New Hampshire is known to many as a vacation destination for families of all ages. Residents and visitors alike enjoy our mountains, lakes, rivers, streams, and beaches. Yes, we are surrounded by states that have legalized this drug. Let all of this information be a siren to keep New Hampshire an island.

If people want weed so bad, they can go to those other states. Let us keep NH for all of the people who put the health, well-being and safety of our children first. This is much more inviting and attractive to families and those who enjoy the great outdoors and fresh air.

 

Celeste Clark is the Executive Director for Raymond Coalition For Youth – The Raymond Coalition For Youth empowers the community to promote positive youth development and reduce youth substance use and suicide risk.

The post No Fear Tactics or Lies, Just the Scary Truth appeared first on Granite Grok.

Often called “The Nation’s Report Card” it measures various subjects like Arts, Civics, Economics, Geography, Mathematics, Reading, Science, US History, and Writing. Given that we are political bloggers here at GraniteGrok, when this came in from the NH Department of Education, I took a look because the title of the email had this:

NAEP releases 2022 U.S. History and Civics results, revealing low confidence in civics knowledge

I’m not surprised at all as I see signs of it all over the place and across all age spectrums. We CANNOT be a functional Republic without our citizens having concrete knowledgebases about the how and why of our Founding, the how and why of what our political system works, and the how and whys of what their civic duty should be. Unfortunately, as we write often, ideology has supplanted (nay, overtaken) information.

Let’s face it – much of the Trevor Project’s “Transgender and Non-Conforming Policy” adopted by school districts is because Superintendents and School Board Members have no idea of what basic civics are or even a bare notion that the Constitution was written to PROTECT citizens from the Government form it outlines. We wouldn’t be having the battles in schools over Wokeness if they did.

Sidenote: I have just started my Round Two with my school district – details to follow.

Students aren’t much better – emphasis mine, reformatted:

CONCORD, NH (May 3 , 2023) — Today, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often known as the Nation’s Report Card, released the results of the eighth-grade 2022 NAEP U.S. History and Civics assessment.

Nationwide, average scores declined in U.S. history and civics for eighth-graders compared to 2018, with civics scores declining for the first time since the assessment began in 1998. The newest results continue a decades-long stagnation in civics and decline in U.S. history scores. Understanding U.S. history and civics is critical to participating in a constitutional republic and living up to our nation’s ideals. The nation has seen long-term static and declining performance in math, English, and now U.S. history and civics.

New Hampshire Department of Education Commissioner, Frank Edelblut:

“Schools certainly have a core role to play in instruction around citizenship knowledge and skills, but the long-term trends – as well as the recent decline – raise this as a concern well beyond the doors of the school,” said  “We must ask fundamental questions about how we are educating our youth, and use the data to propel change and growth. While we are disappointed with the results, simply asking schools to do more of the same – the things that brought us here – cannot be a strategy for improvement. The results make it clear that, as a society, we are not serving our students well.”

• In 2022, 22% of students nationally performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in civics; 31% are below NAEP Basic.
• In 2022, 13% of students nationally performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in U.S. history; 40% of students are below NAEP Basic.
• In 2022, the magnitude of score declines since 2018 was greater for lower-performing students than the decline for higher-performing students nationwide.
• The newest data reflects nationwide results.

The nationwide results are available here.

When I first started to rail about the Trevor Project’s Trans policy, my exclamation to the Gilford School Board was this:

THIS IS BASIC CIVICS people!  You REALLY are going to subvert peoples’ Right to Free Speech and lie to Parents?  In this Dillon’s Rule State, where do you, a mere subdivision of the State, gain the Power to grant a new Right to a minor child to subvert the Free Speech of others – what NH Law does that?  And what RSA (NH Law) gives you the Power to lie to Parents about the transgender status of their child?

Bupkis. And in fact, most school boards here in NH that have adopted it still don’t list, as they do for other policies where the Legislature has granted them specific Powers to “do stuff”, the RSAs at the bottom of that Policy (note: they can’t – they don’t exist. Yet another failure of Civics by School Board Adult members. ADULTS!).

It comes down to the Government Education system that has most of our children in the schools not doing the job we pay them to do.  Again:

• In 2022, 22% of students nationally performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in Civics; 31% are below NAEP Basic.
  In 2022, 13% of students nationally performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in U.S. history; 40% of students are below NAEP Basic.

And this level of underachievement has been happening for DECADES and when that happens, it isn’t the kids. Look, every teacher probably remembers “that class” that only had two brain cells, each of which was competing to be third. It happens. But when the lack of achievement happens year after year after year, you have to start looking at the adults and the curriculum.

And like Grokster Ian holds, we are back to arguing what the cost of an “adequate education” is on a monetary basis and NOT what a student’s achievement level should be at the end of their government school career. Money isn’t education but it should be secondary – but NH keeps putting that cart before the horse.

And I will posit that this is a managed purposeful decline. There is no other reasonable explanation for it. If our children are not being taught properly, the literal future of our children is at stake. Already, we see Wokeness being taught because of every DIE thought available, every microaggression, and every single one of the now thousands of “preferred pronouns” that we are to know and use knowledgeably before we even have been introduced to someone. We are to acknowledge every class instance of victimhood of yesterday, today, and going forward.

But go ahead, ask your School Board members, your Superintendents, your teachers even basic civics. I’m betting they will fare no better than the average man-in-the-street interview:

• How many branches of Government are?
• Who is the President?
• Who are your Senators and Representatives at the Federal Level? State level?
• Is the Judiciary meant to make decisions for political purposes or legal ones? Does it matter?
• What IS the difference between a Dillon’s Rule State and a Home Rule State? Why is it important?
• How OLD were the “important” Founding Fathers (note: they weren’t the “old men” that the Left claims they are)?
• What is the difference between the Constitutions at the Federal and State level and why is the answer important?

I could go on and on.  Those are simple to the point of trivial but I’m betting less than 10% (easily) don’t know those answers.

So, for grins and giggles, here is what NAEP believes are levels for Basic, Proficient, and Advanced in CIVICS in Grade 8 (which assumes Grade 4):

Basic:

Regarding the content for civic life, politics, and government, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can describe the structure and function of government;

• identify the difference between civic and private life; and
• interpret stimuli to identify governing documents and their purpose.

Regarding the content for U.S. and world affairs, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• identify potential areas of conflict and cooperation between countries; and
• recognize that the United States is part of an interconnected world.

Regarding the content for the roles of U.S. citizens, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• identify restrictions to fundamental freedoms;
• identify ways in which citizens influence American society; and
• describe the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizens.

Regarding the content for the constitution and American government, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• identify and explain the sources and purposes of tax dollars;
• identify the purpose of each level of government: national, state, local; and
• identify ways in which the media and private citizens can express opinions and play a role in the political process.

Regarding the content for foundations of the American political system, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• identify key democratic ideals, including equality and individual rights;
• identify equality under law, consent of the governed, and natural rights; and
• describe how the U.S. has not always lived up to its founding ideals and principles.

 

Proficient:

Regarding the content for civic life, politics, and government, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• describe different types of government;
• identify separation of powers and checks and balances;
• analyze and infer the meaning from a variety of different civics-related sources;
• analyze the responsibilities/purposes of government; and
• recognize the need to balance rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Regarding the content for U.S. and world affairs, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• examine ways in which the United States influences other countries;
• evaluate global scenarios and determine the effect that these scenarios may have on the United States and its policies; and
• identify foreign policy issues.

Regarding the content for the roles of U.S. citizens, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• identify the process of becoming a U.S. citizen;
• make inferences about media sources to gain political and civic information;
• explain the differences between civic rights, civic responsibilities, and the duties of citizens;
• describe how rights are protected and limited by the U.S. Constitution; and
• explain how rights have evolved in the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding the content for the constitution and American government, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• describe the rights of citizens, including due process of law;
• describe how the media can play a role in elections and the democratic process;
• explain the purpose and functions of each level of government: national, state, local; and
• describe ways in which citizens influence government.

Regarding the content for foundations of the American political system, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• describe the purpose of the Bill of Rights and apply the Bill of Rights to real-world scenarios;
• explain that the United States is made up of diverse groups, whose ideas have contributed to the American political system;
• draw conclusions from sources to describe the foundations of American democracy;​
• describe how U.S. constitutional democracy relies on an educated citizenry; and
• identify reasons why the United States can be viewed as the land of opportunity.

 

Advanced:

Regarding the content for civic life, politics, and government, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can evaluate sources to draw conclusions about early American political history

• identify information from multimedia sources with differing points of view; and
• analyze and apply the concept of federalism.

Regarding the content for U.S. and world affairs, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• identify the roles, purposes, and limitations of international organizations; and
• explain global issues and develop potential solutions to global problems.

Regarding the content for the roles of U.S. citizens, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• explain how individuals participate in and influence the democratic process; and
• evaluate the importance of civic responsibilities in a democracy.

Regarding the content for the constitution and American government, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• explain the role of political parties and interest groups in the democratic process;
• explain how the media plays a role in elections and the democratic process; and
• analyze the functions of the three branches of government.

​Regarding the content for foundations of the American political system, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• describe the purpose of various founding documents, including the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers;
• evaluate competing ideas within the U.S. political system;
• evaluate how the diversity of the United States has contributed to the development of the American political system; and
• describe changes in American society and government.

 

 

And the same for US History:

Basic:

Students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level in U.S. History likely can

• recall major historical terms and concepts,
• identify the context of major historical figures, places, ideas and events;
• identify simple historical concepts in primary or secondary sources; and
• make simple conclusions based on primary or secondary sources.

Regarding the content for change and continuity in American democracy, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• recall fundamental knowledge of the Civil War including causes, key events, and outcomes; and
• recall fundamental knowledge about the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding the content for gathering and interactions of peoples, cultures, and ideas, students performing at the NAEP Basic​​ achievement level likely can

• recall knowledge of the experience of Black or African Americans (and enslaved Africans) through Reconstruction; and
• identify major social and cultural characteristics in various time periods.​​

Regarding the content for economic and technological changes, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• demonstrate knowledge of the impact of economic policies and technological innovations;
• identify major technological and economic developments; and
• identify and describe the economic motivations of European colonization.

Regarding the content for the changing role of America in the world, students performing at the NAEP Basic achievement level likely can

• identify the relationships between different nations and groups of people; and
• recall fundamental knowledge about major events related to foreign policy.

 

Proficient:

Students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level in U.S. History likely can

• read and interpret primary and secondary sources to make inferences and draw conclusions;
• recall knowledge of historical events without source material to provide context; and
• demonstrate understanding and knowledge of change over time.

Regarding the content for change and continuity in American democracy, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• demonstrate understanding of the influences and content of major founding documents;
• identify principles in American founding documents;
• recall knowledge about political and social reform movements;
• make inferences or connections using primary sources;
• read and interpret maps to develop conclusions; and
• identify inequities involving freedom and opportunity for women and Black or African Americans.

Regarding the content for gathering and interactions of peoples, cultures, and ideas, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• identify experiences of Black or African Americans from Reconstruction to the Great Migration;
• identify the nature and consequences of American Indian interactions with European explorers, colonists, and the United States government;
• identify the motivations and influence of abolitionism;
• demonstrate understanding of the perspectives or contributions of individuals and groups to the development of unique American culture;
• read and interpret graphs and maps to identify trends in migration to and within the United States;
• demonstrate understanding of the composition of the workforce and the impact of different groups in various time periods;
• make inferences using primary sources; and
• use historical terms to answer a question.

Regarding the content for economic and technological changes, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• describe the relationship between government policies and the economy;
• apply historical knowledge to analyze a source;
• explain the effects of economic and technological change;
• demonstrate understanding of the economic consequences of the labor of enslaved and free Black or African Americans in the South;
• determine the perspective of individuals or groups regarding economic systems; and
• determine or provide reasons for an effect of a historical event or process.

Regarding the content for the changing role of America in the world, students performing at the NAEP Proficient achievement level likely can

• identify U.S. foreign policy across various time periods;
• interpret an author’s purpose or point of view in historical sources;
• use sources to infer the meaning or significance of historical events;
• understand two historical concepts and the connections between them to explain events; and
• demonstrate understanding of the interaction between peoples and nations.

 

Advanced:

Students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level in U.S. History likely can

• demonstrate understanding of historical events and concepts through writing, and
• analyze primary and secondary sources to contextualize and explain historical ideas and events.

Regarding the content for change and continuity in American democracy, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• analyze and interpret primary and secondary sources to explain in writing their impact or effect in specific time periods;
• explain motivations for westward migration and expansion by White and Black or African American settlers;
• understand the causes and effects of federal government policies and actions regarding slavery;
• recall detailed information about historical people or events without the assistance of a source; and
• make complex or detailed connections between concepts related to rights of individuals and groups.

Regarding the content for gathering and interactions of peoples, cultures, and ideas​​​​, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• place events within historical time periods;
• analyze primary and secondary sources to determine purpose, supply evidence, reach conclusions, or draw inferences;
• make comparisons between different roles and lifestyles within and across different historical time periods in American history (colonial; Reconstruction, modern day);
• provide multiple points of evidence for a historical claim; and
• demonstrate historical knowledge through written expression.

Regarding the content for economic and technological changes, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• demonstrate understanding of how changes in technology impacted economic growth;
• use multiple pieces of evidence from historical sources to arrive at a conclusion;
• use maps, charts, and graphs to analyze historical trends;
• demonstrate understanding of the significance of major economic developments; and​
• provide an explanation or justification for a historical claim.

Regarding the content for the changing role of America in the world, students performing at the NAEP Advanced achievement level likely can

• explain in writing the impact of government policies on different groups or nations,
• make inferences or contextualize ideas from a source or time period;​ and
• describe the intended purpose or impact of foreign policy.

So, how would your kiddos do?

The post NAEP 2022 US History and Civics Are In: “Revealing Low Confidence in Civics Knowledge” appeared first on Granite Grok.

I’m just going to leave this here:

New Hampshire General Court Legislative Ethics Committee Complaint Form

I, the undersigned, do allege that, in my personal knowledge, the following individual(s):
______________________________________, who hold(s) the position of __________________________,
did commit a violation of law, or of a guideline, rule or regulation of the General Court. In support of my
complaint, I offer the following statement of facts. I understand that the filing of this complaint is confidential
and that the initial review and preliminary investigation of this complaint shall be conducted in nonpublic
session unless otherwise requested by the individual(s) complained against. I further understand that
unauthorized disclosure of confidential matters or materials contrary to RSA 14-B:4, is punishable in
accordance with RSA 14-B:4-a.

STATEMENT (May include reference to the provision(s) allegedly violated):

…and let y’all dwell on that…and to whom (thrice).

The post Quick Thought: Heh! Heh! And……..Heh! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democrat-run plantations with names like California or San Francisco have this notion that they have influence outside their political boundaries. They can’t help but try to project power to get their way in places where no one would ever elect them to public office.

The Left Coast is legion for banning business with or state travel to other states, but San Francisco, the poop-map city by the Bay, out-did even California. States that enacted any law they considered to be anti-LGBT*** were put on a no-fly list. No one in city government would be traveling there, doing business with them, none of it.

Thirty States earned a scarlet letter from San Francisco’s culture-war Pharisees but rather than cause those banned states harm, it made things more difficult and more expensive for San Francisco. While that’s hardly a game-ender for progressives, someone eventually realized it also hadn’t encouraged a single state to change any of the laws that offended San Francisco City Councilors.

No one gave a damn, including San Francisco, so the City Council voted last week to drop the ban.

 

The rollback comes after a report by the city administrator’s office found that no states ever appeared to change their own laws in response to the city’s boycott. A budget and legislative analyst’s report also found the city had done business with the states on the boycott list. A one-year period between mid-2021 and mid-2022 saw waivers for contracts and purchase orders totaling $791 million. Meanwhile, the budget and legislative analyst also found that the city had spent nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses to carry out the boycott.

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” according to the city administrator’s report. “Few, if any, other jurisdictions implement travel or contracting bans as expansive as the City’s.”

 

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities.”

I guess my first question is, was anyone surprised by that?

Can anyone provide an example of a progressive rule, law, mandate, or intervention that is not an administrative burden with unintended consequences? I’m going to go with no because (and maybe I’ve been misled all these years) that’s the entire point. Administrative meddling is the foundation of progressive politics. Bureaucrats interpreting rules witht

 

The post San Francisco Drops Ban After They Discover No One Cares appeared first on Granite Grok.

Sadly I’m not surprised that the NHSBA came out against the parental rights legislation that will be voted on in The New Hampshire House soon. It’s hard for me to remember when this lobbying organization supported any parental rights laws. It seems odd since parents pay their salaries.

Check your school budget to see the amount of dues paid to this lobbying organization. This is money that could be better spent on educating your children.

Here is the actual testimony that was presented by the NHSBA that opposes passage of the parental rights legislation.
NHSBA-SB-272

Why is there even a need for parental rights legislation? Maybe we should start there. It begins with the NHSBA’s recommendation that all schools adopt a transgender policy (JBAB) that’s hostile to parental rights. Within this policy there is instruction directed towards school staff to LIE to parents if they inquire about their child’s gender:

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.

This anti-parent model policy starts off with an attack on parental rights. The policy does not give parents due process, but instead assumes all parents are abusive monsters. There is no “innocent until proven guilty,” parents cannot be trusted so school personnel must hide this information from parents.

Is it any wonder that legislators have been contacted by their constituents to pass a law that requires school personnel to tell the truth?

FERPA, the federal student privacy law specifically states that parents have the right to examine their child’s school records. So how are schools legally hiding this information from parents? That’s a good question.   Why such hostility towards the parents who are the ones funding the NHSBA?

NHSBA did eventually remove this model policy from their recommended list of policies they present to schools. That coincided with a lawsuit in Manchester by a parent who is currently suing the district because school personnel were required to lie to her about her child. This plaintiff is also a public school teacher who is outraged that this policy is in place. Many teachers do not want to be put in a position of having to lie to good parents.

The NHSBA lays out a list of grievances with SB272: 

1) NHSBA has a problem with a law spelling out what is already in state statute supporting parental rights. NHSBA doesn’t mention how many of those laws they OPPOSED. Having this list of current laws that support parental rights, directs a parent who may be reading the law in the future, to laws that support their rights. God forbid parent have an easy way to access that information. NHSBA says it’s “unnecessary” to have this information included in the law. WRONG: If SB272 becomes law, any parent reading the law will not see all of the other laws listed. It provides transparency.  (Page 2 Line 22)

2) Page 3 Lines 8-10: the right of a parent to exempt their child from immunizations. NHSBA goes on to complain that this isn’t necessary because immunizations have nothing to do with schools. Tell that to the two families whose children were vaccinated THIS year AGAINST their parents’ consent. One child in Nashua and one child in Rochester were immunized during a school based vaccination clinic. The parents specifically directed the school NOT to vaccinate their children, but they were vaccinated anyway. Where was the NHSBA? If schools are going to become vaccine clinics, then it is wise to address a parent’s most fundamental rights in SB272.

3) Page 4 Lines 4-5: The right to consent before a biometric scan of a child is made and shared or stored. NHSBA complains that this is not happening in NH Schools so we do not need to list this as a right of parents to consent. Well there is a BIG PUSH for biometric scanning in our public schools. Maybe NHSBA isn’t aware of that? If they are not, should they be weighing in on this important provision?  Why would we wait for biometric scanning in schools to begin, and then address it in state statute? Biometric systems have the ability to collect a vast amount of information on children. Privacy is a big concern for  students and parents. Finger and palm print biometric can track a child’s dietary habits, which can be intrusive.

4) Page 4 Line 6-8: the right of a parent to consent in writing before any record of a child’s DNA is created, stored or shared. Once again, NHSBA has a problem including this right for parents because they say it’s not being done in NH Schools. They think we should wait until schools begin this intrusive process before protecting the privacy of the students. Doesn’t it make sense to put into statute now before anyone begins collecting DNA from children? Texas has already begun asking parents to collect DNA samples on their children after a school shooting. Parents would store the DNA in their home, but what if school administrators decided to keep those records? Why wouldn’t we want to make sure that parents were consenting on something this important?

5) , Lines 9-10 – the right of a parent to consent to any medical procedure or treatment to be performed on a child. Public schools don’t conduct “medical procedures” on students. NHSBA argues that schools do not conduct medical procedures on children. Isn’t a vaccine a medical procedure? Didn’t two children get vaccinated against their parents’ consent this year? YES. School based medical clinics are part of the CDC’s agenda for community schools. Not only are schools supposed to be providing mental health services to students, but medical services too. Amoskeag Health is already in the Manchester public schools providing services. It makes sense to include this important language in law. But, NHSBA opposes that too.  This is a list of NHSBA fighting against parental rights.

6)Page 4, Lines 12-19 – the right of a parent to ask the school if their child is transgender, and the obligation of the school to be truthful. God forbid a parent has the right to ask about their child’s gender identity at school and God forbid we expect those working in the school to be honest and not lie.

7) Page 4, Lines 24-25 – the right of a parent to know what extracurricular clubs the child is participating in. NHSBA surmises that this is about LGBTQ+ clubs.  Once again, NHSBA wants to keep parents in the dark and allow school personnel to lie to parents. Federal FERPA law already states that parents have a right to examine their child’s school records. Why would any information be exempt from disclosure? Some kids do not want their parents to know that they failed a class, but parents have a right to know that information too.

The parent/ (public school teacher) suing the district for withholding information from her has since removed her child from the Manchester public schools. All of these anti-parental rights policies do is, drive families out of the public school system. If parents cannot trust the people working with their children to tell them the truth, why would then send them to that school?

What is next? What will they lie to parents about in the future? Where does it end?

CALL THE NH SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION AND TELL THEM TO STOP OPPOSING PARENTAL RIGHTS!
YOU PAY THEIR SALARIES, THEY SHOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMING BETWEEN A PARENT AND THEIR CHILD: Phone: 603-228-2061

Then tell your school board members to STOP paying dues to the NH School Boards Association!! There is an alternative to the NHSBA: The NH School District Governance Association. 

 

 

The post NH School Boards Association Fighting AGAINST PARENTAL RIGHTS : Take ACTION NOW appeared first on Granite Grok.

Biological women, hereafter referred to as ‘women,’ do not have a prostate. Men have one, and wearing a dress doesn’t make it vanish. Neither do estrogen therapy or castration. You’re stuck with the male chromosomes, the skeleton, and that pesky prostate.

So no, you can never be a woman, not really, but you may pretend, and I’m not here to tell you otherwise. Neither is Dr. Peter McCollough, but he recently jotted down some thoughts about new research on prostate cancer in men pretending to be women (my words, not his). If you are unfamiliar with his qualifications, he is an Internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and author.”

For the sake of context, “Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution, patterns, and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population. It is a cornerstone of public health and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare.”

Dr. McCullough is eminently qualified to make statements about research into health and disease conditions, and in the case of prostate cancer in men, he is concerned that doctors might not test for it if they are “presented” to them as women.

 

More and more physicians will be managing the explosion of men who undergo transgender therapies and surgery for gender dysphoria. It is important to remember that these boys and men are still fully male and are susceptible to male cancers, including prostate cancer.

 

When a biologically male patient has appropriated the appearance or manner of a woman, you will need to ignore the fear of retribution that might be associated with testing them medically as men. If you don’t – as an example – undiagnosed cancers (like prostate) could kill them. To which Dr. McCullough adds (emphasis, mine),

 

” ~32 months of estrogen therapy and castration in 2% did not eliminate the burden of prostate cancer. Indeed, it is possible that estrogen use drove a more rapid progression once the cancer formed. These data suggest when it comes to carcinoma of the prostate, men are men, and need standard screening for prostate cancer including digital rectal exam and blood prostate specific antigen testing.

 

Your chosen circumstances might aggravate the condition. Being you could be fatal.

As for the doctors, the culture war is real. We get it. One mishandled situation and you become the newest well-known name in someone else’s TikTok video, complete with the cascade of outrage that can follow. But if you don’t do the test, and the guy in the dress has an undiagnosed and untreated man-cancer, how does that scenario play out?

Did you refuse to test because you are a bigot when, as we all know, ordering the test that could have caught that cancer might make you a bigot?

It sucks, yes, so I’m here to offer a pro tip. It’s like that with everything on the Left. The cure is to 1) stop electing these a**holes to positions of power and 2) stop putting up with the BS and push back hard.

It’s not a new skill set.

Millions of asymptomatics were forced into “protocols” that were more damaging to their mental and physical health than any risk presented by COVID. Innumerable members of the human race were required to take multiple flu tests over months or years to gain access to jobs, schools, or events, many that are or were in health care.

No one gave a damn about their feelings, and nearly all of that crap was based on lies.

Doctors have every right to tell patients if they have an increased physical risk for cancer, regardless of who or what they pretend to be. The patient can choose not to test for it, but if they were born male, they can’t decide not to have a prostate or for it to become or not become cancerous. Being prissy about how you identify is also your choice. Just understand that, in this instance, it could be fatal.

If it makes sense, given the circumstances other than your pretending to be a woman, get screened regularly. If your doctor appears reluctant to bring it up, that becomes your job. Let them off the culture war hook so they can do theirs.

 

 

 

 

The post Bad News ‘Ladies’ (Cough-Cough) – Estrogen Therapy Might Make Your Prostate Cancer Worse appeared first on Granite Grok.

Citizens who questioned the town of Londonderry’s failure to establish new rules of order at the Town Council reorganization meeting were silenced and berated by Town Councilor Jim Butler and Council Chairman Farrell, including him calling one citizen a joke, video below.

We want to thank Jonathan Esposito for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.

 

 

When the inappropriate behavior was re-addressed by other citizens at the following public meeting, councilors doubled down; “Don’t vote for me if you don’t like it!”

 

 

This comes as part of wider pushback from the town of Londonderry against citizens who question the lack of transparency coming out of Town Hall, the failed reorganization of several land use positions, and increasing disrespect towards members who challenge the public narrative.

The town manager is writing letters to newspapers accusing citizens of causing chaos, the town council chairman hides behind his private email, and the town skirts 91A at every possible opportunity, claiming every exemption they can grab a hold of instead of favoring disclosure in the spirit of the law.

Just what IS going on in Londonderry?

 

The post Is Public Comment a Joke in Londonderry? appeared first on Granite Grok.

I am resurrecting my QUICK TAKES feature which, for those not aware, is a hat trick of things I’d like to comment on, but don’t really see them developing into full-blown essays of their own right.  As a sample, here are two (randomly selected) of my prior entries in this category:

Quick Takes – Hat Trick – Granite Grok

Quick Takes – Hat Trick – Granite Grok

This will be infrequent but occasioned by my seeing things I want to comment on that don’t really “shoehorn” into my current meme or Survival Sunday postings.

 

DEPOPULATION

That there is a worldwide active-measure drive at depopulation has been a very bitter and difficult pill for me to swallow.  I mentioned them in my first two Thought Splinters (Part 1, Part 2) and, in parallel, in four essays:

The 7.3 Billion Dollar, er, Person Question – Liberty’s Torch (libertystorch.info)

Proverbs 16:18… and What’s Coming? – Granite Grok

Dark Thoughts in the Small Hours – Granite Grok

Borrowing from a Dog Food Ad – Urban Scoop

So it was with deep sadness but pure credulity that I viewed this video:

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/naomi-on-birth-rates.mp4

 

Sterilization of the future.

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Naomi-Wolf-conference-call-fertility.mp4 https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/naomi-on-male-fertility.mp4 https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Fertility-thorp.mp4

 

As Surak says: they want you dead – and your generations cut off.  You are a useless eater, especially if you’re old or infirm.  Remember, to the Socialist, you are only worthy of life if you are active in service to The State.

Remember, in socialist societies, an individual’s worth is measured, not by being a unique person made in the image of God, but by that person’s utility to the state. If you’re no longer useful and, worse, if are an economic drain on society, you’ve got to go.

Fear for your children.  Fear for your older loved ones.  But especially your children and your posterity yet-to-be.

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

On the occasion of Israel’s 75th birthday and a friend sending me this video, and in re-watching it (because I’d seen it before a couple of years ago), something occurred to me regarding the Left in general – in the context of the Left’s increasing hatred of Israel.  But it’s broader than that.

 

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Jerusalem-bus-singing.mp4

 

The Left’s anthem, their wish list, is John Lennon’s IMAGINE.  Among them are no countries, no borders, no heaven or hell.  Thus they see themselves at war with all countries, all borders, and all religion.  Look at the obvious love of country and nation and people in this video – utter anathema to the Left.  So now consider this POS illegal thinking that people standing and putting their hands on their hearts for the Star Spangled Banner is “terrorism” (bolding added):

 A TikTok user named Paulina was recently terrorized beyond imagining while at the Rainbow Oaks Country Market, in Fallbrook, California. No, she wasn’t shot at by an illegal alien with an illegal gun. Nor was she beaten by screaming men claiming to be women. This was even worse than being misgendered. The National Anthem played on the restaurant’s television and sound system, and diners stopped eating, stood up, and placed their hands over their hearts. For Paulina, this triggered fear and, on her part, racism. That’s depressing. Even more depressing is that the most popular commenters shared her fear, outrage, and disgust.

She got comments supporting her.

Why?  Because it’s a people loving their country which the Left hates.  A country has secure borders, a common language, and a dominant monoculture.  In the Left’s quest to eliminate poverty, war, etc., is the core of attempting to eliminate being right (underlining replaced italics):

What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with–none of the religions, none of the philos­ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government–have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they’re convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov­erty, crime, and injustice must be found–can only be found–in the attempt to be right.

 If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency–all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

And if there are no borders, language, culture, religion, etc., there is no being right.  And how do you eliminate these things from our society?  Borders, The Potato is working on that.  We already have “Press 2 for Spanish” and I’ve heard some places with even other options (who remembers the scene from one of the Beverly Hills Cop movies where Axel Foley hears language option after language option).  Our culture is being debased, slowly-slowly, by every perversion imaginable.  Child sacrifice, er, abortion on demand up to – and some have proposed even after – birth.  Openly displaying your religion is mocked (I wear a kippa; I was told to not wear it when networking or interviewing because people who are too religious are suspect here in the northeast).

People loving their country, in particular, are a threat to the Socialists.  These people are chasing a utopia, a vision of diversity, equity, and inclusion that will not result in the paradise they think they’ll get – but rather hell on earth.  Meanwhile, this Nigerian woman in Germany does a reaction video to a video about the origin of the Star Spangled Banner.  Just look at her reaction.

 

First Time ever Hearing The Star Spangled Banner as you never heard it | reaction

 

 

More of this sentiment, please.  And apparently there are a slew of such videos reacting to this song.

Pride in your country?  They hate you.  Love your culture?  They hate you.  Love your race?  They hate you.  Love your G-d, not Marx?  They hate you.  If you are not a fellow traveler.  They hate you and want you dead.

And to that illegal at the restaurant, and all the ungrateful people hating it here?  I’ll help you pack.  I hear Cuba has excellent health care and universal literacy.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

First, specifically, in a somewhat-recent Survival Sunday – Thursday SITREP Edition post I had an entry about the new DNA meeting between Canada, the USA, and Mexico.  A yuuuuuuge step towards what’s been rumored and hinted at: a unified North America.

Biden, Trudeau and AMLO Release the “Declaration of North America” – Prepare your Affairs Accordingly – The Last Refuge (theconservativetreehouse.com)

LEO HOHMANN: Biden Signs On to “Declaration of North America” (DNA) with Canada and Mexico – Is the Planned North America Union Making a Comeback?

 

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/125/283/933/playable/0f685bbf9fec5392.mp4

 

This has been the grist of many a “foil hat” site.  And always dismissed… even by me, at least until recently.  In my view the cultures, never mind races and other factors, are too different to survive as an entity for any length of time (Canada and the US as a combined entity, in normal times, I might consider possible – but not with Mexico thrown in).

Consider my wife’s birth country, the USSR, which really was just the Russian empire made Socialist.  The culture of Kazakhstan, the other ‘stans, and others, are vastly different cultures than that of the European-focused Russians.  Such an amalgam of different ethnicities / cultures forced together was bound to fail, and eventually did.  So too will this fail.  Most amalgam countries do.  Eventually.  I fear, though, that it will take a while… and that the actual death throws will be calamitous.  Power is never relinquished willingly.

But second, it brings up a broader point, to wit the fact that these people are missionaries locked on a utopian dystopian vision: a one-world Socialist government.  As stated in the second part, above, as well.

 

 

Just look at the whole Covid crisis.

Remember something critical here, summing up.  The Socialists have, through multiple attempts, been willing to murder over 100 million civilians.  With the brass ring of their end goal seemingly within their grasp, how many will they be willing to sacrifice to achieve Socialistopia?

 

 

Go back up and click through to the answer to the 7.3 billion person question, if you haven’t already.

The post QUICK TAKES – Hat Trick appeared first on Granite Grok.

Iranians are Muslim in name only. Most Iranians consider Islam, an invader. We have a saying in Persian that the way you take your first step points your path for the rest of your journey. To elucidate this, please allow me to elaborate and give a brief account of Islam.

Islam’s very first step was that of violence aimed at the decimation of any people that stood in its path of conquest. It all started with Muhammad when his own Quraysh tribe chased him out of his hometown of Mecca. He was a troublemaker who earned the “crazed poet” epithet. He escaped from Mecca and settled in Medina where a large tolerant Jewish community lived. There he found enough peace to start his campaign of gathering a bunch of thugs with the promise of booty in this world as well as the eternal pleasure of a sensual paradise if people followed his edict.

The rest is history. One of the very first things he did was to turn on the Jews of Medina – an easy and convenient target to kill, loot and enslave. Being amply rewarded for this thuggery, his followers expanded their range. To this day, the goal is the same. Destroying any and all people who refuse to surrender everything they are and have to this creed of savagery and slavery.

Nearly 1400 years ago, the followers of Muhammad from across the scorching Arabian Desert managed to conquer Iran (Persia), the greatest empire of that era. After the conquest, they tried to eradicate one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions.

Originally, many Iranians and other minorities who lived in Iran were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from the Arab butchers, but deep within their hearts, they never surrendered to the Bedouin Arab culture. That period became the defining moment of the 1400 years of resentment Persians kept it in their hearts; this resentment still exists to this day. If you by accident call a Persian an Arab, there won’t be a good scene. The events of history have toughened present-day Iranians. They have no feelings for Islam and its founder, but they pretend as if they do. They have become great pretenders. But the totality of 1400 years of Islamic barbarity and savagery must and will end. Iranians no longer need to pretend that they are practicing Muslims when in fact they are not.

Before the Islamic invasion of 1979, most Iranians were unaware of the true nature of Islam. But the 1979 Islamic invasion quickly changed that. Nowadays, masses of Iranians are irreparably alienated from corrupt and oppressive Islamic rule. The rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is crumbling. The previously solid edifice, or at least the appearance of it, is finally showing many cracks that continue to grow. There are just too many fault lines to list here. Many consider this an era of Iranian awakening or Iranian renaissance. Islam has always been in contrast with Persian values, as is evident from the glorious pre-Islamic Iranian festivities and celebrations.

In the monumental task of dealing with Islam and its variations, every individual, group, and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. We must urge all people to resist Islam’s encroachment and not be deceived by its sanitized version presented in non-Islamic lands. The destiny of civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking this responsibility would be an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

For one, multiculturalism and multi-religionism are not interchangeable and are not one and the same. Muslims and their frequently well-paid apologists use the multiculturalism umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticism that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.

Don’t listen to me, and don’t listen to these conniving dissimulators. Find out for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries.

This multiculturalism gambit is Islam-manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of the non-Muslims while the Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything or anyone non-Islamic anywhere in the world. Those of us who, through reason and tremendous acts of will, have freed ourselves from the enslaving yoke of Islam placed around our necks from birth know about all the heinous inside dirt of this plague of humanity.

We hardly need to call a toll-free number to hear a phony canned message of deceptions and lies. We have experienced Islam firsthand and up close from the inside. We have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. We have seen Islam in action where it wields sway. Some of us even tried desperately to cling to this security blanket that was wrapped around us from birth. Yet the more we studied, and the more we experienced Islam, the more our effort to remain in the fold became untenable. We broke away from Islamic slavery and found it to be our solemn duty to expose this fraud of a religion, help other Muslims to free themselves from it, and warn the good-hearted and gullible non-Muslims against falling prey to it.

It is Muslims and Muslim organizations who are guilty of dissimulation and fraud. Muslims act meekly when they lack sufficient power. Once in power, Real Islam emerges from its shell of dissimulation and puts free people and their way of life to the sword.

The post Iranians Are Not Muslim appeared first on Granite Grok.

Vermont Democrats have created a state where it appears necessary to ensure that 12-year-olds can get treated for sexually transmitted diseases without telling their parents. Isn’t a better question or concern, where in Vermont are 12-year-olds getting STDs?

First, from True North Reports.

 

S.151 would “allow a minor 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care for the prevention of a sexually transmitted infection,” which would further remove parents from direct involvement in the health and wellbeing of their children.

The bill would require informing parents only if hospitalization is needed: “The physician shall notify the parent, parents, or legal guardian of the minor if the condition of the minor child requires immediate hospitalization for treatment of the sexually transmitted infection.”

Clear as Vodka, comrade, so back to my question.

To get a sexually transmitted disease, you need to have sex with someone who has an STD. This suggests that either your partner has one or they have had sex with someone who does. I find it unlikely that twelve-year-olds, despite the Left’s efforts, are having enough sex with enough partners in their age groups (of suspicious enough circumstance) to get an STD. I could be wrong. The Green Mountain State might be the nexus of Tween-year-old sex trafficking rings and rampant disregard for sexual health despite the blathering of Democrats about how important it is.

The alternative is that children 12 years or younger are having sex with “adults” (maybe lots of them) who have casual sex in excess such that they’ve contracted and then passed on a sexually transmitted disease that manifests at 12 years or older.

Vermont is very progressive, but sex with minors is still illegal. It is rape. Not just rape, but rape rape. Any women’s healthcare advocate or regular contributor on The View worth her forceps or Abortifacients will tell you as much.

So, S.151 isn’t about making accommodations for the immediate healthcare needs of children. It is meant to hide child rape and sex trafficking from parents and guardians. And not for nothing, but these are the same people (Democrats) who insist that the government schools have more rights over children than their parents.

 

 

The post Vermont Dems Propose Bill to Hide Child-Rape and Sex Trafficking from Parents appeared first on Granite Grok.

Mayor Eric Adams of New York has been very vocal about the illegal migrants being sent to sanctuary cities nationwide by Florida and Texas governors. I will give Adams credit for going to the Border to witness the chaos himself.

Still, rather than use his knowledge to pressure, President Biden, to fortify the Border, he is going after the Southern governors pulling the Race Card out of his sleeve. He says he never mentioned race, but I heard the undertones clearly. The illegals are bused to Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. These cities have two things in common. They are Sanctuary Cities and have Black Mayors. Adam’s comments ignore the first and key on the second qualifier. He claims these busloads of migrants are cruel to the immigrants and the target cities. Though he never said race in his comments, he did say the Black Mayor-controlled towns were targeted. That is pure race-baiting, and it is disappointing to be used by Mayor Adams.

Adams and the outgoing mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, say their cities can not handle any more illegals imported into their towns. They claim they are out of space and resources. This should trigger them to realize the burden our government expects our Southern Border cities to carry. Texas and Arizona are overflowing the glass, with far more people than sent to any of these sanctuary cities. These northern Mayors want it both ways. They want to declare their cities sanctuaries to fit in with the WOKE crowd. They never ran the numbers on what this might mean. They never imagined the influx of people they are experiencing today. It sounded good and scored points, but the reality is far more complicated. Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona had no choice. They were turned into sanctuary states against their will, and other states should share in the burden and the bill delivered to Joe Biden.

The New York Post calls Adams’ comments “Race Baiting jiu–jitsu.” Adams is getting a tremendous amount of face time regarding the transfer of immigrants and is, of course, taking shots at Republicans. He claims DeSantis and Abbott are using the illegals as human pawns. He also makes the point that the Republicans have not done anything to improve our immigration policies, but he misses the more significant issue. Joe Biden and the Democrats have eradicated our Borders. Without Borders and a sovereign country, immigration policies mean nothing.

In a few days, Title 42 lapses, and large masses are staging in Mexico, ready to cross into America. We cannot handle the wave of humanity we are about to see, and the Biden Administration has done nothing to prepare. On Tuesday, Biden announced he is sending troops to aid, but they will only handle administrative duties to free up Border Patrol to work the Border. Biden’s concern is the efficient processing of illegals and not preventing them from entering the country. Biden is consistent. Every decision he has made has been wrong for America, and this one on Title 42 may be his worst. The security and health of America will be weakened in the next week, and Biden does not seem concerned.

The post Black Mayor Wants Equality But Resorts To Race Baiting appeared first on Granite Grok.

Next Wednesday … May 10th … Donald Trump is going to do a CNN “Town Hall” in New Hampshire. WHOA … whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hasn’t he been telling us for years that CNN is Fake News? Does he no longer believe CNN is Fake News? Did he ever believe it?

The comments from the Trump-faithful are easily anticipated. For example … “Trump is playing eight-dimensional chess, and you can’t even play checkers. %@*^# you” … or “you want DeSantis, huh, huh, huh, he’s controlled by Paul Ryan” … etc., etc. etc.

I don’t care. I don’t care what the Trump-is-always-right people say. I don’t care what the GOP-Establishment says. I call them, like I see them … and that is that.

It’s one or the other. Don’t tell me that CNN is Fake News, but then go and do a Town Hall on CNN.

 

The post Hey Donald Trump … If CNN Is Fake News, Then Why Are You Doing A “Town Hall” On CNN appeared first on Granite Grok.

As promised in the last Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over.  Fairly certain about a Friday Overflow-Overflow.

Also, for those prepper-minded, my last two Survival Sundays:

Survival Sunday – Sunday PREP Edition – Granite Grok

Survival Sunday – Thursday SITREP Edition – Granite Grok

Now, let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:

 

*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Note: No time to really do things “normally” this post with videos, lots of comments, etc.  Just a meme dump.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Pick of the post:

 

 

The scariest thing to me is not that The Potato – “Pedo Pete” – sexually abused his own daughter.  The scariest thing to me is that, for so many on the Left, that’s not a deal breaker compared to getting rid of Orange Man Bad.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Palate cleansers:

 

—

—

The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

Helen Joyce, writing at The Critic, has strung together some excellent thoughts on one of the most pressing issues of the day—women fighting for the right to speak freely in the shadow of the latest cultural-Marxist fad; trans-rights.

Her defense centers on “Kellie-Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker, a women’s rights activist who holds rallies under the rubric Let Women Speak.” Transactivists don’t like her, so the piece is worth some time, but I’d like to focus on a few critical bits that apply more generally to the problem—using transgender rights to stifle free speech.

 

If you zoom out, you’ll see that those who try to silence Keen would never be placated, no matter how much she tried to police her words. In March, the inaugural conference of the Lesbian Project, a think tank set up by journalist Julie Bindel and philosopher Kathleen Stock to advocate for same-sex attracted women, was disrupted by protesters who regard it as “transphobic” to think straight men who identify as women aren’t lesbians. Among them was Sarah Jane Barker, a trans-identified man who spent 30 years in jail for kidnapping, torture and attempted murder.

 

Men who like to take women’s clothing off twice before sex, their own and their partners, are not lesbians. They are – to borrow the approved parlance – cisgender men in ladies’ garments. The notion that they have a right to use women’s safe spaces just because they put on a dress is absurd. But if you disagree and dare to say as much, they might have to act even less like the lady they never were and kick your bigoted ass.

Diplomacy is not an option.

People need to understand that to the political Left, the sacred middle ground is not a destination. It is that bit of distance over which they must first drag you but that, once traversed, will end with what passes for your principles wrapped unceremoniously in a shady motel carpet, sacrificed to the maw of their rhetorical volcano. If you give them even an inch, they will presume you can be convinced to sell out on anything if they push enough buttons.

It is why constitutionalists and conservatarians have such open disdain for what are colloquially referred to as RINOs. Republicans in name only. Democrat apologists pandering to the Left’s middle-ground lie. Prophets for false idols of moderation that lure unsuspecting victims toward the unyielding absolutism of Democrat socialism.

You can’t give them anything they want. Ever. It always ends badly. Look at what they did as champions of black Americans. The Democrats destroyed their families, faith, education, opportunities, and culture and increasingly trapped them in crime-riddled urban plantations. The Uncle Tom’s are not those who free themselves from the human and cultural decline of the Left; it is the people of color who call themselves Democrats that advocate for the new slavery.

And while the Left is not done with Black Americans, it has advanced a new front against women. A path that, if uninterrupted, will end women’s rights by redefining what a woman is to a state of mind, erasing all the gains for which they claimed to fight.

The Left is also at war with men, using gender ideology to castrate and emasculate them in the (not so) rhetorical crib. And there is no middle ground. There is no Be You. You will be what they say or nothing at all. But that only works if you can’t say anything of which they disapprove. So it matters little where you start in the fight. As Joyce notes in her conclusion,

 

“Keen, Bindel, Stock and Gaines differ a lot in politics, language and style. And yet the same people want to silence all of them. To me, this suggests there isn’t any way women who believe sex is real, binary and salient can make that message palatable to transactivists, so there’s no point trying. And so I’d like to propose an expanded version of Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it, wherever, whenever and as loudly as you like, using whatever words come naturally to you.”

 

No movement, no matter what its precepts, regardless of whose feelings it claims to defend, can be allowed to extinguish free speech, free thought, or free association. Your right to peacefully disagree is the highest value and must be preserved without regard to the direction from which you face it. Thou shalt not be compelled to say other people’s words, and silence is not violence.

Let’s call that the only proper middle ground and agree that if everyone defended it, no matter whose feelings got hurt, we might all be better off.

 

The post Free Speech is the Only True Middle Ground And Everyone Should Be Defending It appeared first on Granite Grok.

Absolutely, there is a war on free speech. To be more accurate, however, the war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government.

Although the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom, every day in this country, those who dare to speak their truth to the powers-that-be find themselves censored, silenced or fired.

Indeed, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.

In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

For instance, as part of its campaign to eradicate so-called “disinformation,” the Biden Administration likened those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists. This government salvo against consumers and spreaders of “mis- dis- and mal-information” widens the net to potentially include anyone who is exposed to ideas that run counter to the official government narrative.

In his first few years in office, President Trump declared the media to be “the enemy of the people,” suggested that protesting should be illegal, and that NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem “shouldn’t be in the country.”

Then again, Trump was not alone in his presidential disregard for the rights of the citizenry, especially as it pertains to the right of the people to criticize those in power.

President Obama signed into law anti-protest legislation that makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest activities (10 years in prison for protesting anywhere in the vicinity of a Secret Service agent). The Obama Administration also waged a war on whistleblowers, which The Washington Post described as “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration,” and “spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records.”

Part of the Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush made it a crime for an American citizen to engage in peaceful, lawful activity on behalf of any group designated by the government as a terrorist organization. Under this provision, even filing an amicus brief on behalf of an organization the government has labeled as terrorist would constitute breaking the law.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the FBI to censor all news and control communications in and out of the country in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also signed into law the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate by way of speech for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence.

President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government’s war efforts.

President Abraham Lincoln seized telegraph lines, censored mail and newspaper dispatches, and shut down members of the press who criticized his administration.

In 1798, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious” statements against the government, Congress or president of the United States.

Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now.

Good, bad or ugly, it’s all free speech unless as defined by the government it falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes.

This idea of “dangerous” speech, on the other hand, is peculiarly authoritarian in nature. What it amounts to is speech that the government fears could challenge its chokehold on power.

The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God (not the government) as the Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240-plus years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself.

One such test is playing out before our very eyes on the national stage led by those who seem to believe that only individuals who agree with the government are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.

To the contrary, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that the First Amendment was established to protect the minority against the majority.

I’ll take that one step further: the First Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from the government’s tendency to censor, silence and control what people say and think.

Having lost our tolerance for free speech in its most provocative, irritating and offensive forms, the American people have become easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

Tolerance for dissent is vital if we are to survive as a free nation.

While there are all kinds of labels being put on so-called “unacceptable” speech today, the real message being conveyed by those in power is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular, controversial or at odds with what the government determines to be acceptable.

By suppressing free speech, the government is contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Mind you, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law is labeled an “extremist,” is relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, must be watched all the time, and is rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

It doesn’t matter how much money you make, what politics you subscribe to, or what God you worship: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are all potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government.

 

 

John Whitehead | The Tenth Amendment Center

The post The War on Free Speech is Really a War on the Right to Criticize the Government appeared first on Granite Grok.

Vermont’s misnamed Affordable Heat Act is a dangerous piece of partisan legislation that will cost Vermonters more than money. But many know that and have been vocal in their opposition to it. Dems in the legislature passed it anyway, and Gov Scott has promised a veto.

Related: Are Vermont Socialists Not Yet Ready To Accept the Price They Must Pay for Socialism?

 

“From the start of this conversation, I have clearly, and repeatedly said I agree we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, including in the thermal sector. However, I strongly believe the right approach is to help people make the transition, not financially punish those who cannot afford to do so,” said Scott in a statement.

“Unfortunately, the supermajority in the Legislature decided to take a completely different approach by giving an unelected commission, the Public Utility Commission, the power to design and adopt a system — without guaranteeing the details and costs will be debated transparently through the normal legislative process, in full view of their constituents.”

 

I’m not familiar enough with the bill to know its particulars, but my experience with Democrats passing off responsibility to unelected commissions runs long and deep. Whenever possible, Left-Leaning legislators use majorities to create increasing costs through fiscal or regulatory burdens over which they can claim no control.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) gave de facto taxing power to an unelected board whose decisions about the cost of carbon mitigation are an energy tax.

Before 2011, the New Hampshire Dem majority legislature used one-time money to create 800 million in new recurring expenses that taxpayers would have to pay for in successive years (as in, forever). In 2011/2012, the Republican supermajority that followed cut all of that spending out of the budget to the hew and cry of the progressive spenders.

The Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) is another example. An unelected committee would manage a gas tax regime upon citizens in member states without any accountability to state legislators. It fell apart but has transitioned into irresponsible and unachievable EV mandates in states like Vermont and Massachusetts, where TCI was a beloved evolution of policy to address a non-existent crisis.

This is, in all cases – literally – taxation without representation, and elected Lefties love this. A stream of increasing revenue they will happily spend while claiming they have no control over the burdens of its perennial increase. When constituents complain, they feign concern and create a new committee – unelected patronage positions with legislative power, adding to the wall of separation between Elected Democrats and accountability.

The unaffordable heat standard feels like that, and with veto-proof supermajorities in the legislature, Phil Scott’s promise to protect Vermonters appears futile, but is it? The peeps don’t like the rules or the burdens it will place upon them, and so far, Dem legislators have been indifferent or deaf to that opposition. Their belief that they know better takes precedence. You need this; stop complaining, you petulant child.

A Scott veto forces every Dem to double down on that indifference, and they can’t all be in secure seats yet. And while Gov. Phil Scott isn’t much of a Republican; he needs to keep this promise. Make the Democrats stand up again and say, we’re more intelligent than you, we demand this, and you’re going to pay this price.

Make them own it despite public opposition. There is, after all, another election around the corner and another winter between then and now.

 

The post Will Vermont Dems Double Down on “We Know Better Than You”? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Politics shapes our lives in countless ways, from how our governments operate to the laws that govern our societies. Yet, it remains one of the few taboo topics on first acquaintance. Unlike religion, politics dictates almost all facets of our lives, making it vital for students and citizens. Nevertheless, understanding the complex world of politics can be challenging, even for experts in the field. So, where to begin? Political science books are a good starting point for anyone seeking to expand their knowledge and gain a deeper understanding of the principles and theories that govern the subject. They provide insights into historical events, social movements, regimes, and contemporary issues and help readers engage in critical thinking and analysis. A good political science book can unveil the hidden side of political games, making you wiser and capable of exploiting administrative moves that affect the “governed.” In this piece, we’ve compiled a list of the top political science books that will change your perspective and provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the political world. So, grab a cup of coffee and settle in for an unforgettable journey into the world of politics!

Political Science Books of All Time: Where to Start  

Readers do not commonly pick political science books from library shelves. Few people consciously choose to read them without some form of motivation. Yet, they remain some of the most essential reads for anyone curious about politics and government. While they may seem intimidating, plenty of titles cater to novices starting to explore the field.

Political science books for beginners provide an excellent foundation for understanding the complexities and nuances of politics, from the basics of democracy to the intricacies of international relations. Still, we can’t advise you to jump head-first into Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky’s books, despite offering unique insights into the workings of politics, power, and society. It’s better to start with simple reads and progress as your interest peaks.

Taking on a political book can seem insurmountable if you don’t enjoy reading. However, with guidance and support, you can make small critical steps to the journey of political education. Among the few resources you can exploit is CustomWritings, a professional essay writing service. The company can help you develop a list of political science books for beginners to start you off. They can also write summaries, reviews, and themes in various books to help you grasp the main concepts. Their work extends to writing essays, research papers, movie reviews, and other academic assignments. Check out their website for cheap college papers and discounts.   

12 Best Books on Political Science to Deepen Your Understanding of Politics

 

1. “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Few political works have impacted as significantly as “The Communist Manifesto.” The book outlines the principles of communism while criticizing the capitalist system, arguing that the former was the only way to achieve true equality and freedom for all people and that the latter inevitably led to exploitation and inequality. Besides inspiring millions, the book has influenced global political movements, revolutions, and social change.

2. “The Republic” by Plato

This powerful book is based on a dialogue between Athenians and Socrates, exploring the nature of justice, the ideal state, and the role of the individual in society. The book can provide a solid grounding for political thought and should be among the best political science books. 

3. “The Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli

“The Prince” is one of politicians’ most widely quoted books. It explores the nature of power, the role of the ruler, and the relationship between politics and morality. This book will make you understand why rulers use whatever means necessary to maintain control, including deception, violence, and manipulation.

4. “The Federalist Papers” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

Unlike the other books on this list, “The Federalist Papers” is a collection of 85 essays and articles championing the ratification of the United States Constitution. The book’s detailed analysis makes it an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the principles of the American government and the role of the Constitution in shaping the country’s political system.

5.”Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville

This is a classic work of political science. It explores the democratic political system, including its strengths and weaknesses, the role of the judiciary, and the importance of civil society. It is a priceless resource for anyone seeking to understand the challenges facing democratic institutions today and remains one of the best political science books of all time.

6. “Politics” by Aristotle

“Politics” examines the nature of political power and the role of government in society. The ideas in the book have profoundly impacted governance, leadership theory, and philosophy. It remains one of the best books for political science majors and a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand the foundations of political thought and the role of government in society.

7. “The Social Contract” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“The Social Contract” examines the relationship between the individual and the state. The book argues that the legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed and that the social contract between individuals and the state is the foundation of a just society.

8. “The Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes

“The Leviathan” argues that human beings are naturally selfish and violent and that a strong central government is necessary for maintaining order and preventing chaos. It can explain why some governments use excessive force on their people, earning it a spot on the list of controversial books for political science.

9. “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill

This is one of the most widely used books about political science in universities globally. It explores the nature of individual freedom and the role of government in protecting it. Mills insists that everyone has the right to do as they please if they do not harm others and that the part of government is to protect individual freedom and promote the general welfare.

10. “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt

The book provides a detailed analysis of the roots of totalitarianism in the 20th century, including the role of imperialism, racism, and totalitarian ideology.

11. “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek

“The Road to Serfdom” critiques socialism and defends free-market capitalism. It holds that socialism leads to totalitarianism and that a free-market economy is necessary to promote individual freedom and economic prosperity. Apart from being at the center of global market debates, it’s among the best books on political science.

12. “Second Treatise of Government” by John Locke

This is probably the most influential work of political philosophy ever written. Locke’s ideas about natural rights, government by consent, and the social contract have profoundly impacted the development of liberal democracy worldwide. The book is fascinating, and it’s not hard to see why Locke’s ideas have endured for so long.

Yes, to Political Science Books!

From classic works that have stood the test of time to contemporary titles that address current political issues, the books explored in this article provide insights into significant historical events, contemporary issues, and social movements. Whether you’re a student, a scholar, or a curious reader, they will provide a comprehensive understanding of the political world and inspire you to engage in critical thinking and analysis. So, pick up one of these books and start exploring the world of politics today! 

 

The post 12 Best Political Science Books to Read appeared first on Granite Grok.

I don’t know if Chuck Todd has roosters, but they would lay eggs in his world because there is no such thing as Male and Female in Chuck’s world. In Chuck’s world, there is no delineation between a person with XX or XY Chromozones.

In Chuck’s Bizarro World, gender is not black and white, but a spectrum-a beautiful colorful spectrum, where your gender can be any combination of X, Y, or any other letter you may desire. Is it any wonder we have a confused generation of children preparing to rule the world? When did we go so far off the rails of logic and common sense that someone in an influential position like Chuck Todd can say something so ludicrous and keep his job? I don’t think it would be any more nonsensical if Todd did say he dines on rooster eggs every morning. Boy, I miss Tim Russert.

Todd tried in vain to explain his discovery of the “Gender Spectrum” in a heated discussion with Republican Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on this week’s Meet the Press. Vivek is a brilliant individual who has proven himself in science and business. I am unsure he can maintain his decorum interacting with these witless talking heads. This is not the first heated interaction for Vivek, and Chuck better hope he survives this debate better than Don Lemon did.

Vivek explained his belief that no child under 18 should be allowed to have gender-altering surgery. He said,

“There isn’t a state in this union that allows you to smoke an addictive cigarette before the age of 18, that allows you to get a tattoo before the age of 18. That’s a body-altering change that a kid may later regret in life. 

 So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that if you’re after 18 years old, you’re free to decide whatever you want to do. That’s what it means to live in a free country,” Ramaswamy continued. “But below the age of 18, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say that we won’t allow genital mutilation or chemical castration through puberty blockers.”

I think what he said was logical and fact-based, but that is when Todd responded with his version of reality. 

“Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you’re describing it? Are you confident that it isn’t a spectrum?” Todd asked. “There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum.” 

Chuck did not cite any specific research he was basing his comments on.

You cannot have a rational conversation with anyone on the Left, not in today’s world. This inability to exchange thoughts and ideas rationally and civilly is why we are losing relationships with those of opposing political views. Until this dynamic is corrected, we will never bridge the widening divide between us.

As for Chuck Todd, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Joy Reid, Joe & Mika, and the list goes on, I often wonder if they ever listen to themselves. Al Sharpton used to be the extreme we measured ignorance against, but he is mainstream amongst this group. They feed off each other, and their attempts at sensationalism should probably be commended. It isn’t easy to lose a complete grasp of reality, but this group has done it.

The post NBC’s Chuck Todd’s Roosters Lay Eggs appeared first on Granite Grok.

Remember, I don’t drink alcohol, but I do think these side-by-side images perfectly summarize what a real female is versus an ersatz one. The Human Rights Campaign, however – the largest and most well-funded LGBT authoritarian group – is warning Anheuser-Busch (maker of Bud Light)  not to go wobbly or they will turn their own HRC “LGBT scoring process” against them.

So, which group is A-B going to go with: the Alphabet Mafia or do they try to win back their lost customer (which, I’m betting, don’t want the LGBT religion shoved down their throats)? I think HRC is making it rather clear – make us happy and throw your customers overboard (those BIGOTS!) Emphasis mine, reformatted:

Pro-LGBT advocacy group reportedly blasts Anheuser-Busch’s response to Bud Light backlash, pressures company to issue pro-transgender statement

A pro-LGBT advocacy organization is reportedly pressing Anheuser-Busch to publicly proclaim its support for transgender people. Anheuser-Busch has been facing a groundswell of negative consumer sentiment since enlisting transgender figure Dylan Mulvaney to advertise Bud Light beer. But according to a letter obtained by The Hill, the Human Rights Campaign is pressuring the company declare its support for those who identify as transgender.

“In this moment, it is absolutely critical for Anheuser-Busch to stand in solidarity with Dylan and the trans community,” the April 26 letter from the HRC’s Jay Brown to Anheuser-Busch’s head of human resources states, according to the outlet.

Heh!  Forcing the issue, HRC? Now it’s a true “Go Woke or Go Broke” moment – what is your decision? And WHY is it “absolutely critical” in the first place (other than HRC is saying that it is even if it isn’t)?  Who is A-B gonna pick: Authoritarians tell them YOU MUST SUPPORT US or people who would gladly GIVE YOU MONEY if you just gave out an apology.

“However, when faced with anti-LGBTQ+ and transphobic criticism, Anheuser-Busch’s actions demonstrate a profound lack of fortitude in upholding its values of diversity, equity, and inclusion to employees, customers, shareholders and the LGBTQ+ community,” the letter reads. “This not only lends credence to hate-filled rhetoric, it exposes Anheuser-Busch to long-term business impacts with employees and customers increasingly looking for steadfast commitment to LGBTQ+ corporate citizenships.”

This is EXACTLY what HRC doesn’t want you to do – a HUGE example of Peak Trans by having a company side with paying customers over sexuality ideologues. And certainly, a huge loss of face for HRC if A-B does choose customers and profits over “a sternly worded letter”.

HRC has to learn the difference between “hate-filled” and “being made sport of”. Frankly, if HRC is not-so-subtly trying to tell A-B that it MUST support the prancing Mulvaney in order to gain more customers “long-term“.And enough with the “transphobic criticism” and “hate” schtick – most of the time, it’s just criticism. Stop hating on folks that simply just don’t like what you are doing and saying; it’s a very impolite tact on your part.

But of course, in the vein of “nice company ya got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it”, HRC is threatening A-B by

• decreasing its made-up “Corporate Equality Index” score
• what seems to be a demand for a  “mandatory” meeting with them

And get this – it wasn’t enough for the Bud Light head honcho to make an “apology” to its customers that have been offended by their choice of Mulvaney and his subsequent Bud Light actions. They are demanding this:

…including that the company issue a statement “reaffirming its full support for its transgender customers, shareholders, and employees.”

My translation is: “And we want you to slit your own capitalist throats in front of your customers”.

So what will Bud Light do? Bow down or reset to sell more beer?

 

(H/T: The Blaze)

The post Real Beer vs Bud Light and the Demands of the Authoritarian Human Rights Campaign appeared first on Granite Grok.