“Today’s verdict in Trump’s case is an absolute disgrace. From the very beginning, this entire witch hunt has reminded me of the sham trials and political persecution I saw in the People’s Republic of China before I fled to America.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s weaponization of the legal system is a move straight out of the CCP’s playbook. It is a farce and is completely un-American.

Today, the CCP and other hostile countries are laughing at us and will plan accordingly to take advantage of the weak and corrupt Biden regime. I stand with President Trump and will do everything I can to ensure he wins New Hampshire in November. The future of our country is at stake.”

Thank you,
Lily

Republican Candidate for New Hampshire Congressional District 2

The post Trump Verdict: The CCP is Relieved That Our Justice System Is Just Like Theirs appeared first on Granite Grok.

Today, we learned that we voted either Concur, Non-Concur, or Non-Concur with Committee of Conference (CoC) on 93 House bills and 20 Senate bills. Most bills passed the recommended motion of the committee chair with a voice vote. Some bills and their amendments were debated, and others were voted on with just a brief explanation of what the Senate’s fingerprints… I mean, amendments… were tacked onto the bills.

All in all, the House didn’t seem to mind a few word changes or adding or removing certain items… it was the tacking on of whole other bills that sent them to CoC land.

We learned that most of the returned House bills that we non-concurred on, or those House bills that were already designated to go to Committee of Conference, had some Senate bill tacked onto it that the House had already rejected or tabled. In fact, SB499, the bill that expands the school free and reduced breakfast and lunch program, along with making it available in the summer, and also expanding food assistance to eligible older adults and people with disabilities, was not only sent to the House on its own, but also tucked into HB1278. A similar House bill, HB1212,was already tabled in the House on 4/11/24. Seems like these free school meal bills keep repeating on us like a bad hotdog.

We learned that the first bill concurred today was HB185, relative to parental rights and responsibilities based on shared parenting. Republicans have been trying to pass this shared parenting legislation for over a decade, and finally, we got it done. Of course House Democrats were opposed to it. The bill also included language to require school governing bodies to post on their official website the amount of funds received by the state, either by allocation or grant. The bill was concurred 191Y-171N.

We also learned that HB1018 will go to a Committee of Conference (if the Senate accedes). The House voted Non-Concur CoC by a voice vote after a Concur vote failed 179Y-190N and a Non-Concur vote failed 180Y-190N.HB1018 was relative to on-premise and off-premise liquor licenses…simple right? But the Senate tacked on a current use bill (SB504) which provides that the owner of land in current use and designated as open space may post that such land is restricted to use for public recreation only and expands grounds for criminal trespass to include violation of open space land posted for recreational use only and when associated with a violation of the controlled drug act or human trafficking. Now why would the Senate do that? Well, SB504 (the current use bill) came to the House only to be amended to include the House version of bail reform (HB318). Well, why did they do that? It’s because the Senate amended the House version of HB318, which is going to a Committee of Conference (if the Senate accedes), which puts the Senate bill version in jeopardy. So everyone is tacking the language of bills that they want into bills that the other body may want in hopes of getting it passed. It can be very confusing… and that is why they call this “silly season”.

We learned that the Senate amended HB1633, cannabis legalization bill, was ultimately non-concurred with a committee of conference with a division vote of 261Y-108N. The House did not like the Senate version, and if the Senate accedes to having a CoC then they will have to come up with some sort of compromise next week or it’s dead. There were some who said we should pass this version and fix it later, especially since it doesn’t take effect for two years. There were others who didn’t think a state solution (like the liquor store model) was the right idea. Then there were House members who didn’t like either the House or Senate version. Rep. Anita Burroughs (D-Bartlett) spoke against the Concur motion and remarked, “I agree with my esteemed colleague [Commerce Chair Rep. Hunt (R-Rindge)] that a gummy before going to bed would be better than a drink because I only drink on legislative days.” That did get a good laugh. Visit Tandy’s after House session and count how many legislators you see there. (Wink)

We learned that the Senate changes to HB1186 was concurred with a roll call vote of 190Y-179N. The vote was basically on party lines. This bill was relative to firearm purchaser privacy. This bill prohibits the assigning of a specific merchant code to the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. This bill further provides a mechanism for enforcement of this prohibition. The folks voting in favor of this bill basically do not want the government tracking what we buy by putting little notation on our credit card purchases. Nah… we don’t want to be a part of that… but House Democrats do… because of “public safety” or something. Our friend Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) also just wants to make sure there’s no fraudulent activity going on with your credit card. I really didn’t know he cared so much about my purchases… how thoughtful.

We learned that HB115 brought us yet another turn at changing the date of the state primary. It would have moved our state primary to June. The House did not concur with this attempt to move the state primary and voted down the Concur motion 159Y-202N. A Non Concur motion passed on a voice vote. The issue is now dead. June would have been a good time to have the state primary because that is when the out of state “resident” voters at our college campuses are not around to “participate”, if you know what I mean.

We learned that HB1410, relative to certain professional licenses and relative to the board of optometry and the regulation of optometry, was tabled 192Y-170N. HB1410 was amended by the Senate to include SB440 since SB440 was Tabled in the House last week. So the Senate made another stab at trying to get this language passed. It would have increased the scope of practice of optometrists to include four new procedures that they currently cannot perform. This ostensibly is meant to alleviate the shortage of people performing those procedures. The ophthalmologists would have none of it, though, and they lobbied furiously to prevent passage of the bill. Optometrists claim they are trained in these procedures and the bill language required them to get more extensive training as well. In the end, we did not see this getting passed.

We learned that the “safe haven” bill was concurred 185Y-174N. The debate regarding this bill centered around an exclusionary clause. This means that if a child is dropped off and it had been abused, that the person handing off the child could not be prosecuted. The opponents of the bill wanted to make sure that abusers would be prosecuted and held accountable for their crimes. The proponents of the bill just want the babies to be dropped off to be taken care of and they claim that people would be more likely to leave the child if they knew they wouldn’t get in trouble for doing so or for whatever they’d done. Testimony during debate indicated that no other state with safe haven laws (or baby box drop offs) prosecute people who drop off babies.

We further learned that HB1215 was non concurred. This bill included language that would have allowed the Town of Hampton to discontinue a particular highway in order to lease that property. Currently, if there is a road in town that the town wants to change the designation (class 6 to class 5, etc.), it goes on a warrant article in a town meeting. This bill would allow the select board to make that decision. House members voted No on concurrence 172Y-180N (roll called) and sent this to a committee of conference on a voice vote.

We also learned that another House member changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Today the Republican Caucus welcomed Rep. Sherry Gould (R-Bradford, Henniker, Warner) to their side of the House.

Finally, we learned that next week, we’re taking a session break while House and Senate members duke it out in Committees of Conference while listening to The Rolling Stones sing “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” We’ll be back on June 13th, ready to vote on Committee of Conference reports. See you then!

 

Editor: A quick thanks to Judy for all of these updates. I’m appending this week’s attendance list to this because we already have a ton of extra content this morning. There were very few roll call votes this week, which is why the numbers are so low, but again, the YTD missed vote totals on the right should interest voters.

5/30		YTD
7	Sanborn, Laurie (R, Bedford)	251
7	O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	200
7	Brouillard, Jacob (R, Nottingham)	76
7	Crawford, Karel (R, Moultonborough)	76
7	Summers, James (R, Newton)	64
7	Dumais, Russell (R, Gilford)	49
3	Trottier, Douglas (R, Belmont)	149
3	Roy, Terry (R, Deerfield)	27
1	Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	54
1	Packard, Sherman (R, Londonderry)	22

The post So Kids, What Did We Learn From This Week’s House Session (5/30/24)? appeared first on Granite Grok.

America is in need of another declaration! Our first was presented in a written form, but in today’s fast-paced world, ears are more adaptable to our living styles. As with America’s first declaration, today’s version also declares an abrupt turnaround from what is current, and in both instances, America’s abrupt turnaround comes from a highly credible source.

Concerning his initial ultimatum, Trump’s 2015/2016 declarations signaled a change from the usual political campaign prattling, and despite his latter-day version lacking Jefferson’s itemized listing, Trump’s campaign announcements constituted his modern list of injustices.

His original run mainly touched upon the public’s long-simmering doubts and uneasiness about why nothing ever changes. Therefore, he lit the hope that possibilities were actually doable, which was believable coming from a man who obviously wasn’t beholden. What followed during Trump’s presidency greatly strengthened the public’s faith by simply fulfilling his campaign pledges.

Now, with this 2024 campaign being as sporadic as it is with all these groundless court appearances, Trump’s messaging is no longer based upon hope, but now with an honest expectancy of what was will be again! And this isn’t just limited to his supporters but also from that mass of anti-Americans who realize that if he gets elected, their communist revolution will be history! In essence, his re-entry into politics, based upon his previous record and latest statements, once again builds a declaratory aura.

So, it’s not difficult to link both his original and current campaigning with a modern-day version of America’s 1776 Declaration! Think about it. The similarities are eerie. These times beckon a historic review since our young country also had to deal with those stubborn Tories, who were bent upon remaining subjects rather than becoming free citizens! Today, it’s backward; modern thought demands dependency rather than freedom!

Connecting our 1776 charter with today should also send chills. Let it be considered today, as it was declared back then that “…Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable…” As is today, a few of those past grievances continue to, “He has refused to assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good,” “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone,” “He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People,” and lastly, “…depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.” These and other grievances were included in America’s 1776 Declaration of Independence. By the way, “He” now refers to our present-day President.

It’s fair to say that the cause of today’s turmoil began as Trump’s original campaign gained credibility. His non-political talk and truthful platform caused his foes to circle their wagons and then to show themselves and their methods; which previously had only been suspected. After that, it’s been “Katie bar the door” and “all hands on deck” against Trump and our Blessed America. George Floyd’s reckless self regard and induced passing merely provided the excuse for their anarchy!

This revealing of America’s hidden power structure was costly, but Trump dictated its necessity. Its unplanned “coming out” meant that tomorrow’s revolution was now today’s. Since this wasn’t planned, we need to build upon our enemy’s disruption. Already, Trump’s agenda has uncovered the media‘s “fake news,” which caused a reduced readership. Also, traitorous corporations have shed their masks as China is now their chosen benefactor. And colleges have been unmasked when supporting their student’s hateful anti-American/pro-communist doctrines.

The end result of this election will undoubtedly usher in one of two futures. Similar to the alternatives back in 1776, the outcomes are either the darkness of living as obedient and mindless robots or the blessed light of living and prospering as free Americans.

This is not an exaggeration when considering the many hundreds of American citizens who have been incarcerated for over three years without any charges. And if that’s not abusive enough, let’s not forget the cold-blooded murder of Ashlie Babbit, which still awaits an investigation! From such lawless acts, the lesson is inescapable; as President Trump has stated, “it’s not just me that they’re after, they’re after all of you!” If Trump fails in November, his words will become an uneasy companion!

The post Our Modern Day Version appeared first on Granite Grok.

ROCHESTER, NH—UNH student and sixth-generation Rochester citizen Sam Farrington has announced his candidacy for the NH House, representing Rochester’s Ward 4.

“I am proud to announce my candidacy for State Rep.” Farrington said, “I have made this decision because my future is at stake. When I look around, I am worried about where we are headed. I stand for values like family, faith, and freedom, all of which are under attack. As a young person, I have skin in the game because my future is on the ballot.” Farrington continued, “As Rochester’s next State Rep, I will fight to advance the interests of Granite Staters. My priorities include decreasing the overall tax burden, lowering the cost of living, increasing educational freedom, protecting the rights of parents in schools, and securing New Hampshire’s border.”

Sam comes from a large and well-known family. His Chesley Hill farm has been in the family since 1913. Over the past few years, Sam has stepped up to manage the property and oversee its renovation. He successfully negotiated with the USDA to secure conservation funding, transforming the estate into a beautiful scene with a successful hay operation.

Sam is an active member of his community. He graduated at the top of his class from Spaulding High School in 2022. He gives back to his city by serving as an American Legion baseball coach and volunteering at Howie’s Field of Dreams, which provides opportunities for challenged kids to play baseball.

“New Hampshire can’t take “Live Free or Die” for granted. We need to elect prudent conservatives with a new perspective to the State House so that we can protect this great state.”

To learn more about Sam or to contribute to the campaign, visit SamuelFarrington.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 31, 2024
CONTACT: farringtonsam22@gmail.com

 

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

The post Sam Farrington Announces Candidacy for the NH House of Representatives appeared first on Granite Grok.

Choosing the right birthday gift for your girlfriend can feel like a pressure cooker. You want to find something unique, thoughtful, and something that truly expresses your love and appreciation. But with endless options available, where do you even start?

This guide aims to take the guesswork out of gift-giving and help you discover the perfect present that will leave your girlfriend feeling cherished and loved.

Unlocking Her Heart: The Key to a Meaningful Gift

The most important factor in choosing a gift is understanding your girlfriend’s unique personality and interests. Here are some key questions to consider:

What are her passions? 

Does she love reading, cooking, music, or spending time outdoors? Tailoring your gift to her hobbies shows you pay attention and care about what brings her joy.

What’s her style? 

Does she gravitate towards classic elegance, trendy fashion, or a more bohemian aesthetic? Understanding her style preferences ensures the gift aligns with her taste.

Does she have any specific desires? 

Has she mentioned wanting something lately? Perhaps a new gadget, a piece of art for her home, or a subscription box related to her hobbies.

By reflecting on these questions, you gain valuable insights into what would truly resonate with your girlfriend.

Gift Ideas to Ignite Inspiration: Catering to Diverse Preferences

Here are some diverse gift categories to spark your creativity:

Experiences: 

Create lasting memories with a shared adventure like a weekend getaway, a concert ticket, a cooking class, or a hot air balloon ride.

Jewellery: 

A timeless and elegant choice, consider a necklace, bracelet, earrings, or a personalised piece with her birthstone or initials.

Fashion and Accessories: 

A new handbag, a cosy scarf, a pair of stylish shoes, or a designer watch can be a thoughtful addition to her wardrobe.

Beauty and Wellness: 

Pamper her with a luxurious bathrobe, a set of high-quality skincare products, a spa gift certificate, or a subscription to a beauty box.

Personalised Gifts: 

Show her you care with a gift that has a personal touch, like a custom photo album, a framed piece of artwork with a special message, or a piece of jewellery engraved with her initials.

Gourmet Food and Drinks: 

Spoil her taste buds with a basket of gourmet chocolates, a selection of artisanal cheeses and wines, or a subscription to a coffee or tea of the month club.

Handmade or DIY Gifts: 

If you’re crafty, consider creating a personalised gift like a painting, a knitted scarf, or a piece of pottery. The effort and thoughtfulness will be truly appreciated.

Remember, the most important aspect is not the price tag but the thought and effort you put into choosing a gift that reflects your love and understanding of your girlfriend.

Beyond the Gift: Adding the Extra Sparkle

While the gift itself is important, don’t forget the little details that make it extra special:

Presentation Matters: 

Wrap the gift beautifully with thoughtful paper and ribbon. A handwritten card expressing your love and appreciation adds a personal touch.

Plan a Special Occasion: 

Elevate the gift-giving experience by planning a romantic dinner, a picnic in a scenic spot, or a fun activity you can enjoy together.

Capture the Memories: 

Take photos or videos of her reaction to the gift. These memories will become cherished keepsakes.

By going the extra mile, you can ensure her birthday is a truly unforgettable experience.

FAQS: What if I’m on a tight budget? 

A: There are plenty of thoughtful and meaningful gifts that don’t have to break the bank. Consider homemade gifts, experiences like a hike or bike ride together, or a heartfelt letter expressing your love.

What if I’m not sure what she wants? 

A: Pay attention to her interests and subtle hints she might drop. You can also ask her friends or family for suggestions.

What if the gift doesn’t go as planned? 

A: The most important thing is the thought behind the gift. If she doesn’t love it, focus on the gesture and express your sincere appreciation for her understanding.

What if the experience provider cancels? 

A: If the experience provider cancels due to unforeseen circumstances, WonderDays will typically offer rebooking or choosing a similar experience.

Are there any blackout dates for specific experiences? 

A: Some experiences might have blackout dates (e.g., holidays, peak seasons) when they are unavailable. Check the experience description for details.

What about age restrictions and physical fitness requirements? 

A: Some experiences have age or physical fitness requirements for safety reasons. These are usually outlined in the experience description.

Here’s what WonderDays offer:

WonderDays offers a wide variety of experiences to suit almost any interest, including:

• Adventure: Hot air ballooning, skydiving, white-water rafting
• Food and Drink: Afternoon teas, cooking classes, gourmet food tours
• Relaxation: Spa days, weekend getaways, boat cruises

Some ways to find out more about WonderDays:

• Website: Visit their website https://www.wonderdays.co.uk/ to explore the full range of experiences, pricing, and locations.
• Social Media: Follow them on Facebook, Instagram, etc.

To read more, click here

The post Finding the Perfect Spark: Birthday Gifts for Your Girlfriend appeared first on Granite Grok.

Now comes, the Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 16 (7), respectfully gives notice of a new compelling authority from the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States “SCOTUS”, decided May 23, 2024 in the matter of ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, No. 22-807 602 U.S.___ (2024). [Hereinafter, “Alexander”]. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Argued October 11, 2023—Decided May 23, 2024, hereinafter Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP 602 U.S.___ (2024) (See attached exhibit A), where the Plaintiff here argues as compelling precedent applicable to the case at bar.

Accordingly, the Appellant respectfully submits to the court, where Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP—above, is an election law case reaffirming the Appellants previous citation of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen No. 20-843 (U.S. June 23, 2022), and the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), on August 14, 2023, in the Appellants motion for late authorities this authority is not only appropriate but precedent in the present New Hampshire case, argued and awaiting release of the NH state court decision.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joining the majority opinion by concurring in part, in the Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP decision, reinforces the precedent of Moore v. Harper, in the examination of the elections clause of the Constitution for the United States, Article I, §4, cl. 1, reinforcing judicial review by State and Federal Courts who both possess the authority to exercise judicial review also over state legislative actions affecting the time, manner, and place of conducting Federal Elections.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP   has tied Moore v. Harper (2023) and Bruen (2022) together and reinforces the Appellants arguments, by stating a fact in law, that the standard of review for examination of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Const. including the Federal Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1, must be examined under Heller/Bruen methodology, and not by means-end scrutiny.

Quoting Justice Thomas:

Although States have the initial duty to draw district lines, the Elections Clause commits exclusive supervisory authority over the states drawing of congressional districts to Congress—not federal courts. It provides: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may it any time by – Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1. The first part of the Clause “imposes a duty upon” state legislatures to “prescribe the details necessary to hold congressional elections.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 862 (1995) (Thomas J., dissenting). The second part “grants power exclusively to Congress” to police the state legislatures’ performance of their duty. Id., at 864. Critically, the Clause leaves the Judiciary out of the districting process entirely.

The Clause’s assignment of rules is comprehensive. For example, a state legislature’s responsibility over congressional elections “‘transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State’” through other state actors; the state legislature is the exclusive state authority. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 58 (2023) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 137, (1922)). In a similar vein, the Clause makes Congress the exclusive federal authority over States’ efforts to draw congressional districts, to the exclusion of the courts.

The historical record compels this interpretation of the Elections Clause text. gerrymandering and vote delusion are not new phenomena. The founding generation was familiar with political districting problems from the American colonial experience. See Vieth, 541 U.S., at 274 (collecting examples). But, the framers nowhere suggested the federal courts as a potential solution to those problems. Instead, they relied on congressional oversight. The framers’ considered choice of a non-judicial remedy is highly relevant to context to the interpretation of the elections clause. See New York State rifle& pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26—27 (2022). See pages 26 and 27 in the Bruen decision below. 

Bruen provides:

We categorize these historical sources, because, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 634—635 (emphasis added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; -pg. 25.

-the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions change in the intervening years. It is one thing for courts to “reac[h] back to the 14th century” for English practices that “prevailed up to the ‘period immediately before and after the framing of the Constitution.’” Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. 554 U.S. 269, 311 (2008) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting). It is quite another to rely on in an “ancient” practice that had become “obsolete in England at the time of the adaptation of the Constitution” and never “was acted upon or accepted in the colonies.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 477 (1935).

Sometimes, in interpreting our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 382 (1983), unless evidence shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’ law. A long, unbroken line of common-law precedent stretching from Braxton to Blackstone is far more likely to be part of our law than a short-lived, 14th century English practice. –pg. 26

Thomas has said specifically that these two pages apply as the corrected standard of review of constitutional interpretation of the Elections Clause Article I, §4, cl. 1.

Similarly, we must also guard against giving post enactment history more weight than it can rightly bear. It is true – pg. 26.

–that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the second amendment was interpreted from immediately after it’s ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” 554 U.S., at 605. We therefore examined “a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of [the Second Amendment] after its… ratification.” Ibid. And, in other context, we have explained that “‘a regular course of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of’ disputed or intermediate ‘terms & phrases’” in the Constitution. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 13) (quoting Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908)); see also, e.g.,  Houston Community college System v. Wilson, 595 U.S.___, ___, (2022) (slip op. at 5) (same); The Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison); see generally C. Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 10—21 (2001); W. Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, 71 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2019). In other words, we recognize that “where A governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision.” [Emphasis added.] NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 174 (1926); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 905 (1997). —pg. 27

            But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls. [Emphasis added.] “‘[L]iquidating’ indeterminacies in written laws is far removed from expanding or altering them.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __, __ (2019) (Thomas, J. concurring) (slip op., at 13); see also Letter from James Madison 477 (G. Hunt ed. 1910). Thus, “post-ratification adaptation or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text – pg. 27

–obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.” – pg. 28. Heller, 670 F. 3d, at 1274, n. 6 (Kavanagh, J., dissenting); see also Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U.S. __, __, (2020) (slip op., at 15). 

Bruen stated that the Court has “made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government.” 142 S. Ct. at 2137.—pg. 39.

The Heller decision abolished means end scrutiny as a test for the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia writes the following for the majority:

Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurispruden­tial point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally ex­pressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important govern­ mental interests.” Post, at 689–690. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Jus­tice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: Be­cause handgun violence is a problem, because the law is lim­ited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposi­tion that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. – pg. 635

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted— pg. 634

them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guar­antee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrongheaded views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evalua­tion, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. – pg. 635.

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applica­tions of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 720–721. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in­ depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)— pg. 635.

Fifteen other cases in the last eleven months since June 2023 citing Moore v. Harper are predicated upon this same principle in law and include the following:

“Since early in our Nation’s history, courts have recognized their duty to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts.”

“When government is alleged to have threatened any of [the provisions in the New Mexico Bill of [R]ights, it is the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply the protections of the Constitution.”

Grisham v. Soelen, 539 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2023) 09-22-2023. See also Griego , 2014-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 865; Hoffmann v. N.Y. State Ind. Redistricting Comm’n, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6344 (N.Y. 2023); Keefer v. Biden, CIVIL 1:24-CV-00147 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2024) Election Clause case.

Meanwhile, the Bruen decision has been cited 78 times since June 27, 2022.

WHEREFORE, THE APPELLANT respectfully submits this Notice of New Authorities for additional consideration in this case forthwith.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel Richard

Daniel Richard

 

 

 

 

The post Daniel Richard v. Christopher Sununu: Motion for Leave of the Court New Late Authorities appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Hush Money Trial of Donald Trump in New York is a stain on the American Justice system that had been the envy of the world. The justice system is another entity that President Joe Biden destroyed. Who could have predicted that Joe Biden, the guy from Scranton, could have successfully put a wrecking ball to so much of America?

Joe Biden has been a loser and liar his entire political life. He had to withdraw from two previous presidential bids for plagiarism and has suffered through three-plus years of lies in the White House. He had the cajones to cart out washed-up actor Robert DeNiro to read a prepared statement in front of the New York courtroom telling anyone who would listen how dangerous Donald Trump is. DeNiro, wearing a mask, was surrounded by a dozen thugs looking like a scene from Godfather 4, which was never shot. This fiasco was on the same day that Biden announced he would have a statement for the press at the conclusion of the trial. Biden is sadly salivating at the possibility of referring to his opponent as “Convicted Felon Donald Trump.” The house money is on acquittal, which is going to make Biden look like the horse’s ass he is. Joe Biden is shallow, devious, opportunistic, and a thief. He may also be guilty of treason, which will be the coup de grace of his legacy, and he can take Hunter down with him.

The trial entered the final arguments stage on Tuesday, after a trial when the crime was never divulged. This trial was scripted with the one intention of Biden being able to label his primary competitor a convicted felon. Every day of the trial gave ammunition for an appeal, but the one remaining fact loomed over the trial: there was no crime. The prosecution spent over five hours yesterday on its closing trying to convince the jury they could believe every word from Michael Cohen, who the defense labeled “The GLOAT” (the greatest liar of all time), and reminded the jury that Cohen had admittedly lied during his testimony. This entire sham of a trial is based on a nameless crime substantiated by a convicted perjurer.

This trial is a classic con game that distracts people from the real issues of the failed Joe Biden presidency. Look at Donald Trump, who is constrained to a chair in a courtroom and unable to campaign. Don’t look at the price at the gas pump. Don’t look at the thousands of young men crossing our southern border. Don’t look at the two wars we are funding. Don’t look at Biden defying the Supreme Court and transferring student loans to every American. Don’t look at the cost of your weekly shopping cart of groceries. This was the plan, but it is not working. The trial is not working out as planned by the Democrats, and people are not falling for the gaslighting. Biden has been trying to convince Americans he was on the right track and they needed to understand the new parameters. He actually insulted the intelligence level of Americans, and Americans do not forget being played for fools.

The post Night Cap: Six Week Trial And Nobody Knows The Crime appeared first on Granite Grok.

By now, bitter-clingers, you hopefully have read the prior two installments of this award-winning series: American Has Fallen … You Better Have and Exit Plan  and America Has Fallen (Continued). In our first installment, we discussed how the Woke-Communists have used their control of America’s institutions to turn Generation-Z into America-hating, Woke-Communist-bots:

Note that Generation-Z does NOT intend to have children. That dovetails nicely with the Woke-Communists Great Replacement project. The Woke-Communists preach that America is too White … that is one of the reasons, according to them, that America needs to transformed.

So the Woke-Communists convince Generation-Z NOT to have babies … for example, why have babies when climate-change is going to devastate the earth in a mere ten years. And they are bringing in illegal aliens in mind-boggling numbers to replace the babies that aren’t being born. Even in supposedly RED States:

And all of illegal aliens’ babies are American citizens by “birthright citizenship.” So even if the Woke-Communists do NOT succeed in getting voting for the present illegal aliens, in twenty years their children will be voting and will give the Woke-Communists permanent one-party rule.

America will be unrecognizable in twenty years. Unrecognizable. But just keep telling yourselves that all you need to do is click your heels together three times while repeating “there’s no place like MAGA” and everything will be alright.

The post America Has Fallen (Continued … Continued) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Madness at the Libertarian Convention, Ross Ulbricht gets a clemency promise from Trump, Victoria Sullivan’s Senate campaign launch, and more!



The post Manch Talk: Trump Booed at LP Convention and Yet … appeared first on Granite Grok.

I’m not telling you anything you don’t likely already know, but I felt we’d better acknowledge the verdict because people will want to know what we think about that.

There was no crime. The process was circus-like. Any effort to appeal the verdict will likely result in all counts being overturned, mostly because of how the trial was conducted.

I would not be surprised if the Judge gets into some deep “you know what” over this.

Everyone had better get their book deals soon because this thing ain’t over, and you’ll want to cash in before it all falls apart.

Trump’s polling will jump up, his fundraising will break records, and Dems will get overconfident.

Stay focused. The economy sucks, no one is happy about open borders or crime. Screengrab the progressive hate and save it.

 

The jury has found Donald Trump guilty on ALL 34 felony counts.

— erica orden (@eorden) May 30, 2024

 

One more (added after publication).

The post Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts … Riiiiiiight. appeared first on Granite Grok.

Dear Mr. Macdonald,

I feel your article was pretty biased because it was factually incorrect. Perhaps we can discuss where we agree or at least what is indisputable.

Related: New Hampshire’s “Red Flag” Camel’s Nose is Back! [Updated]

1. If you are involuntarily committed under our law in effect right now, you are automatically a “prohibited person” by federal law.
2. If you disclose this on your 4473, you will be denied
If you don’t, you’ve committed a felony.
3. Under current law, if you become a “prohibited person” for mental health reasons, you are banned for life unless your state has a “Restoration of Rights” law in place.
4. New Hampshire has no such law and therefore if you are prohibited for mental health reasons in NH you are banned for life.
5. You’re being a prohibited person is not dependent on the state reporting it. The federal law relies on the underlying condition that caused the prohibitions and not the state sharing the information with NICS. In other words, if you get convicted of a felony, and the state forgets to share it with NICS, and you lie on your 4473, you may purchase a gun, but you’re still guilty of being a felon in possession and of lying on the form. This applies to all prohibited persons.

Those are all indisputable facts.

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

Now for some lesser known facts.

1. There are, at best guess, 1000 people in the NICS registry from NH for mental health prohibitions
2. Doctors and therapists are mandated reporters in New Hampshire. If they have reason to believe one of their patients presents a realistic threat to themselves or a specific person, they must report it to the Department of Safety. The Department of Safety reports these to NICS. This is why I was an advocate of doing away with the New Hampshire Gun Line. If you recall, the big argument was they “have local information not available to NICS.” Ever wonder what that was? These people, whenever reported are banned for life from ever owning a gun again. They may have had a bad day. Their wife may have died. They may have said in a moment of weakness, “I just want to die”. Well they continue therapy and pull through it. They decide to get a new hunting rifle. They are denied. It takes them an enormous effort to figure out why, and when they do, there’s literally nothing they can do.
3. Yes, HB1711 would have reported the involuntarily committed to NICS, but as I said, they already are prohibited persons by that point. But more importantly, now they know it and aren’t surprised at the gun store, and they know exactly what they must do to get off the list.
4. This is the reason 48 other states submit these. Even the most progun states like Florida, Texas and Alabama. They do it because the people are already prohibited but need a way to fix that. They cannot take advantage of the law restoring their rights, of whichb they never got notification that they were reported in the first place.

Look, this is a very complex issue and I clearly did a poor job of explaining it to the members, but I can assure you thay I researched the Hell out of it. I even called the ATF and made them explain the process of people being able to get their rights back. You MUST have the Restoration of Rights in state law and it MUST meet the ATF requirements for people to be no longer considered prohibited. I followed it to a T. I even put a safety valve at the end that said no names could be provided until the ATF approved our Restoration of Rights laws.

Finally, bringing up my employment dispute from 30 years ago was a low blow. Yes, my PD tried to use the gun laws against me, but that leaves out a lot of information, like that it was immediately after I arrested a city councilor for OUI, and that I sued in federal court and they settled restoring my gun rights, withdrawing the termination, paying me back pay, and giving me a positive job recommendation. That being said, I am extremely sensitive to the system being used to take people’s rights, including the mentally ill. They are being reported now, and even the ones who aren’t, are still prohibited persons and are banned for the rest of their lives for something that may have been a temporary situation. This law would have helped them.

I picked David Meuse because he would deliver all the Democrat votes and, more importantly, keep them from campaigning on “Republicans refuse to do anything in the wake of the New Hampshire Hospital and Maine mass shooting.” If you notice, we heard none of the usual “we must bam guns” or “we need waiting periods” arguments for the last seven months since the shooting.

I think the 2nd Amendment community has to be more strategic and proactive if we want to continue winning on these issues. The other side is not sitting around waiting. They are constantly scheming for new ways to infringe on our rights. We are always reactive, trying to defend the indefensible. This was our chance to show the public, that we can do more than thoughts and prayers. When in the rare incidences where legislation is necessary, for Republicans, it is laser-focused and not broad, sweeping up everyone but the people who are actually causing the problem. Furthermore, where someone’s rights are impacted, we provide a pathway for them to get them back. Not one Democrat bill has ever done that.

As you said in your article, and I agree, it is my baby and I failed to properly sell it to everyone, but that doesn’t change any of the facts about it. It may be a camel’s nose under the tent, but it’s the camel trying to get out and get his rights back.

 

Editors Note: Earlier today, the NH Senate killed HB1711 for good this session. While that is what I was after, I did want to get Rep. Roy’s take published before that, but due to delays in approval for publication, we were not able to make that happen.

The post I Feel Your Article Was Pretty Biased Because It Was Factually Incorrect appeared first on Granite Grok.

Once upon a time, scientific inquiry was premised on ideas of objectivity, factual analysis, and avoiding bias. The advent of social justice theory, post-modernist thought, and climate alarmism have polluted the waters of many once-prestigious science journals. This political transformation of what was once called science has given rise to pseudo-scientific partisanship on both sides of almost every issue. The result is dubious science, public confusion, and growing distrust of the scientific community, including the CDC and other public institutions.

America is reportedly engaged in a “culture war” that is itself delineated by two scientific worlds. Was COVID-19 created in a lab using dubious gain-of-function research, or did it hop to humans in a live-animal market in Wuhan? Are hormone blockers and gender surgeries beneficial and lifesaving for youth suffering from gender dysphoria, or irreversible sterilizations with potentially deadly and horrid outcomes? Is the planet doomed to end in a decade due to human-caused carbon emissions, or are such claims overblown and alarmist? This atmosphere of scientific division is seeding public distrust.

The Politicization of Science

Science itself has been politicized, and many major science platforms have been tainted. An intriguing survey of this modern phenomenon by the Manhattan Institute’s James B. Meigs concludes:

“Unfortunately, progressive activists today begin with their preferred policy outcomes or ideological conclusions and then try to force scientists and journalists to fall in line. Their worldview insists that, rather than challenging the progressive orthodoxy, science must serve as its handmaiden. This pre-Enlightenment style of thinking used to hold sway only in radical political subcultures and arcane corners of academia. Today it is reflected even in our leading institutions and science publications.”

A Failure of Journalistic Integrity?

Previously vaunted publications such as The Lancet, Nature, and Scientific American have come under fire for controversial positions in many of these important public policy areas. Scientific American openly endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, claiming “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people,” a not very scientific claim. The outlet later became an ardent opponent of the lab-leak theory, in articles such as “Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth.” Bad science tainted with partisan bias may well damage the American people.

The result of this science-warping division is that citizens are becoming increasingly distrustful of scientific arguments and institutions. As the government seeks to stifle scientific inquiry contrary to its official endorsement of climate change, transgenderism, or the animal-transmission theory, disinformation, and misinformation have become linguistic terms of coercion. This further deteriorates public trust: no wonder more Americans have become “vaccine-hesitant,” a situation that is itself then employed to tamp down even harder on dissenting viewpoints. This vicious cycle seeds rancor and more societal division, in a vicious cycle that threatens scientific integrity as well as human health.

This muddying of the intellectual waters has been further compounded by a growth in shoddy scientific journals touting fraudulent “studies.” The Wall Street Journal reports that a “flood of fake science” has forced the closure of multiple journals “infected by large-scale research fraud.” The biggest casualty has been 217-year-old Hoboken, N.J. publisher, Wiley:

“In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.

“Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole.”

Finding Truth in a Post-Modern Chaos

In the not-so-distant past, readers critically seeking a balanced understanding of political or scientific issues could read the two sides and seek to find a middle ground. In the post-modern milieu of compromised science journals and partisan wrangling, both science and humanity suffer in a spiral that may not wane in time to prevent a major catastrophe. If facts are morphed willy-nilly to suit one’s socio-political agenda, nothing is reliable and there is no solid ground for either scientific or public policy.

As Meigs explains:

“….science is theoretically supposed to be insulated from political influence. Sadly, the new woke style of science journalism reframes factual scientific debates as ideological battles, with one side presumed to be morally superior. Not surprisingly, the crisis in science journalism is most obvious in the fields where public opinion is most polarized.”

The world seeks reliable data and policies with which to fashion crucial private and public decisions. The death of “real science” is a loss to both sides of the political aisle.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

The post Social Justice Ideology Compromises “Real” Science appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Climate Cult’s Green Meanines have been blaming increased atmospheric CO2 for everything, including wildfires—and there is (sort of, kind of) a connection. Arsonists are starting fires when none begin on their own, and then the media and activists blame that on rising CO2.

Absent these acts of eco-terrorism, wildfires have declined in the modern era, but that’s no reason to slow your roll, and the Green goblins at UC Riverside have decided to take this argument out a whole new door.

CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, landing somewhere around 0.04% (even after the ‘damage’ caused by modernity). It is also essential to life on Earth, which thrives at significantly higher volumes. It is so critical that even the paltry rise in recent years has greened the planet. We’ve mentioned it a time or two. More CO2 means more robust and insect/disease-resistant plants. It is good for the biosphere and farming, especially in more arid regions.

F-you, the greens would say – that can’t possibly make up for the damage we claim it causes but can’t prove.

Introducing the newest new narrative. “CO2 worsens wildfires by helping plants grow.”

The worldwide surge in wildfires over the past decade is often attributed to the hotter, drier conditions of climate change. However, the study found that the effect of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on plants may be a bigger factor.

“It’s not because it’s hotter that things are burning, it’s because there’s more fuel, in the form of plants,” said UCR doctoral student in Earth and planetary sciences and study author James Gomez.

Do you know what else causes wildfires? Rain. Rain makes plants grow (especially wildgrass), which can lead to more wildfires. Drought can lead to wildfires. The poor forest management favored by eco-terrorists. The Eco-Terrorists (who are more responsible for the alleged surge but are never mentioned in the UC Riverside article). Lightning. But yeah, um … CO2.

“To convert light into food in a process called photosynthesis, plants require CO2. Burning fossil fuels for heat, electricity, and transportation is adding increasing levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants use the extra CO2 to make carbohydrates that help them grow, leading to an increase in biomass that burns.”

No CO2, no plants.

Another surprising admission, given the source

“We do need to implement better fire control and have more prescribed burns to use up plant fuel. We need to get rid of the old stuff,” Gomez said.

But Gomez may not eat or live as well if he doesn’t get more climate research grants, so,

“But the best way to decrease wildfires is to mitigate our carbon dioxide emissions. We need more emission control now.”

The issue with Gomez’s plan is that it relies on the West kneecapping itself, while second—and third-world countries are never going to give up a chance at indoor plumbing, flush toilets, and the longer life expectancy that comes from abundant, affordable energy, triple, and quadruple their “emissions.”

Nothing we do can or will address the alleged problem. Gomez and the rest of the Green Addams Family need to go to Asia, India, and Africa and explain to them why they need to continue to live in poverty to sustain the lie.

Or, Gomez could admit he’s a tool of the Marxist using this scam to undermine free markets and capitalism, but that would assume he knows the truth.

The post “Experts” Admit CO2 Greens The Earth … But That’s Bad! appeared first on Granite Grok.

The landscape of subscriptions is undergoing rapid transformation. What was once known as the “subscription economy” has swiftly evolved into the “subscriber economy,” signaling a significant shift in consumer power. Today’s consumers seek access to diverse content beyond TV and movies, including music, lifestyle, gaming, food, health, fitness, and more. Bundling emerges as a vital strategy in meeting these evolving consumer needs. Combining various products or services into attractive packages, cable bundling attracts new subscribers to YouTube TV and revenue streams and helps mitigate customer churn.

Subscriber Bundling Strategy and Its Benefit

Ensuring subscriber loyalty lies at the heart of thriving subscription-based businesses. The key to retaining devoted subscribers is guaranteeing ongoing value from their subscriptions. Given the tendency for subscribers to set up their subscriptions and overlook them, maintaining a top-of-mind presence becomes a challenge for subscription enterprises.

Herein lies the potential of subscription bundles: they offer additional value by integrating supplementary products or services that enrich the existing subscription experience. The trend is clear: savvy subscription enterprises are turning increasingly to bundles as a strategic tool to balance churn and maintain subscriber satisfaction. Subscription bundles of various streaming platforms like YouTube TV offer flexibility, with the freedom to switch subscriptions according to their preferences.

Bundles offer mutual advantages for both users and brands alike. Users benefit from improved economics in their subscription experience, the opportunity to explore new services without immediate financial commitment, and relief from subscription fatigue. Brands, on the other hand, find that bundles aid in retaining their current audience while attracting new ones. Additionally, bundles grant publishers access to firsthand customer data, enhancing their understanding of their audience’s preferences and behaviors. There are different categories of subscription bundling. Do you know what they are?

• Cross-platform bundling involves integrating various subscriptions, such as music with video-on-demand (VOD) services or a cellular plan with complimentary VOD access. This strategy allows users to enjoy a diverse range of services across multiple platforms, enhancing their overall entertainment experience while maximizing the value of their subscriptions.
• Content bundling refers to packing content into bundles, often combining video-on-demand (VOD) services with live TV offerings. Examples include platforms like YouTube TV or Hulu + Live TV, which stream a variety of major broadcast and cable networks directly to users’ devices.
• Ecosystem bundling involves conglomerates of big tech companies bundling various services into comprehensive packages with numerous perks. Prominent instances of this approach include Amazon Prime, which offers free shipping and access to movies, books, and other exclusive features.

Now that you have understood different bundling subscription services, let’s look at why you should opt for this as a customer.

Streamlines your bill payment procedure

Juggling monthly bills can become burdensome, particularly amidst a busy schedule filled with work and personal obligations. Without an efficient management strategy, it’s easy to overlook payments, leading to frustrating scenarios like internet disconnection due to missed payments. Bundling services offer a solution to such issues. By combining your internet service and TV package, you’ll receive a single, consolidated bill each month. This simplifies your monthly budgeting and streamlines the payment process, minimizing hassle and settling bills.

Save Money from Overpaying

Combining internet and streaming services into bundles presents notable cost-saving opportunities compared to subscribing to each service individually. Bundling allows you to access exclusive discounts and unavailable promotions when purchasing these services separately. Moreover, consolidating your services into a single bundle eliminates the hassle of managing multiple monthly bills, simplifying expense management.

Access to Various Content

Although individual streaming services offer unique content libraries, subscribing to just one means you are capped to what that particular provider delivers. However, bundling your services opens up a world of possibilities, allowing you to access the diverse options available across multiple platforms. For instance, while Disney+ hosts the entire Disney animated catalog, ESPN+ features original sports documentaries. You can relish your favorite sports content and cherished childhood Disney memories. With streaming platforms, you can broaden your entertainment horizons by exploring new shows, movies, and genres, including international content.

Conclusion

Staying competitive in a saturated market demands ongoing innovation and adaptability to cater to subscribers’ continuously changing needs and preferences. Introducing bundle subscriptions to different streaming platforms like YouTube TV can prove highly effective in addressing subscriber fatigue, enhancing convenience, improving customer experience, and attracting new subscribers. Given its numerous advantages, bundling may be the default solution for every SVOD (subscription video on demand) provider.

The post Don’t Overpay on Subscriptions – Bundling is Where It’s At! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Wacky Wendy Thomas wants religion taught in public schools. Not Christianity, of course. No, Wacky Wendy wants climate paganism taught. Children will be taught that those who reject this religion are “climate deniers.” They will be taught that the apocalypse is coming … melting ice will cause massive flooding. What dry land that’s left will be devastated by drought and hurricanes.

But they will be taught that there is still time to repent! Stop eating red meat! Stop driving and use public transportation! Tax fossil fuels … if that means some people cannot afford their heating bills, well, that’s a small price to pay to “save the planet!” Pass the “Green New Deal” … before it’s too late.

To cut to the chase … VOTE DEMOCRAT!

And, needless to say, the children will NOT be taught about the environmental degradation and human misery caused by mining necessary for car batteries. There will be no discussion allowed regarding the obviously absurd claims that both colder-than-normal and hotter-than-normal temperatures are caused by human activity warming the planet.  Religious education does NOT allow questioning of the religion.

Wacky Wendy and her ilk want to turn other people’s children into cultists. This is what Woke-Communists do. This is what Woke-Communists are.

The post Wacky Wendy Thomas Wants Religion Taught In The Public Schools appeared first on Granite Grok.

Just because other countries do something does not mean we must adopt it, too. America used to pride itself on being the innovator, setting the trends for others to follow. Not any longer. We have entered into the lemming mode where we think it is WOKE to conform to Canada, Norway, Switzerland, or any other progressive country with off-the-wall ideas. We even see individual states doing the same thing. Maine desperately wants to be like Oregon, even though Oregon is already reversing course on many of its failed ideas.

Depending on upbringing and religious beliefs, some may have radical thoughts on abortion and medically assisted suicide (MAS) to the point of being repulsed by the concept. Christians, myself included, have always looked upon life as sacrosanct, with birth and death in God’s hands. That is not the case with many people who think that mankind should be the keeper of the bell. These folks want to decide which fetus is to be born and when adults should die, and they are ready and able to assist with either. They will kill a fetus up to the time of birth or help someone to end their life because they have lived enough.

Oregon first accepted MAS in 1997, starting as a ballot initiative under the Death with Dignity Act. Nine more states and Washington D.C. have followed suit, with 20 more States debating various forms of the law. Should all these states pass their version, MAS will be legal in most of the United States. With each passing bill, the concept seems to grow, and the list of reasons accepted broadens. In Canada, where 4% of all deaths are listed as MAS, there is a documented case of a veteran with chronic leg pain who checked with his doctor for a remedy and was asked if he would consider a MAS option. Unfamiliar with the term, the patient inquired and was shocked that he was being offered a ticket out rather than relieved of his pain. The patient was deemed a burden for the system and a long-term expense for Canada, so the best solution for the state is for the patient to opt for MAS. This example shows how little respect there is for life when you open the door to legal death. It also shows how the bar can be lowered significantly as each state tries to be more progressive than the last.

When this idea was young, MAS was considered an option for people who were in the advanced stages of debilitating diseases with less than six months to live and had exhausted all treatment options. There was also a 48-hour wait period as a final obstacle. Now, it has expanded to mental illness, depression, and even alcoholism. These laws may be reversed when more conservative governments take the reins in these liberal states, but we need to fight them before they become law in the first place. We have to stop accepting we have to stay in the backseat as progressive Democrat leadership runs us off the road. We have to help Jesus take the wheel and remove these Democrat’s hands from the wheel.

The post Abortion To Medically Assisted Suicide, Where Will It End appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democrat State Senator David ‘rising’ Watters deserves a new nickname or at least a second one. He earned the first as your atypical environmental legislative radical ranting about accelerated sea level rise (and associated tin-foil-hattery).

His latest obsession is offshore wind; like any good ‘green,’ he’ll have it no matter what anyone thinks.

The offshore wind commission he leads doesn’t post past or future meeting announcements, keeps no minutes anyone can find, and appears to be little more than the appearance of procedural propriety. Look, we had a commission. You can ask questions or offer concerns, but that might get you an email reply about how you will get offshore wind regardless, and BOEM is no different.

Biden’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has issued a report finalizing its environmental review of the Gulf of Maine Offshore Wind Research Lease.\ as if it did one. It found no significant impacts, which suggests the unexplained rise in whale deaths near offshore wind projects isn’t a concern.

In October 2021, the state of Maine requested a research lease for the purpose of researching floating offshore wind energy technology and its deployment. The research site lies 28 nautical miles off the coast of Maine, roughly southeast of Portland, and if developed would comprise up to 12 floating offshore wind turbines capable of generating up to 144 megawatts of renewable energy.

On May 29, 2024, BOEM will publish the “Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment for a Wind Energy Research Lease on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Maine” in the Federal Register. After carefully considering alternatives described and analyzed in the Final EA, as well as comments from the public and cooperating and consulting agencies on the Draft EA, BOEM finds that the issuance of a wind energy research lease within the proposed lease area offshore Maine, and related site characterization and site assessment activities, would have no significant impact on the environment. As a result, under the National Environmental Policy Act, BOEM is not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in order to issue a wind energy research lease offshore Maine.

The process moves forward without much regard for the unexplained culling of sea life.

I’m no expert. I don’t know if offshore wind is to blame. The whole thing is fishy to me, but I do know that wind is not green, and it will kill sea birds and have some detrimental impacts. If there was a desperate need, we could take time to evaluate the risks further and manage loss because of some higher purpose, but replacing fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions is not it. Shutting down cheap, reliable energy for expensive intermittent alternatives is economically irresponsible and will result in real-world harm to people and businesses, including (are you listening, Whale Killer?) minorities.

Even if you believe the warming narratives about CO2, America isn’t the problem. Decarbonizing will only cripple our productivity and performance, hampering economic growth and lending to joblessness and systemic stagflation. India, China, Russia, Africa, and Asia will not leave their people in poverty, and neither wind nor solar, even if they were green and affordable, will ever alleviate that. That’s why they are burning coal, gas, and oil and ramping up capacity.

The sacrifice is literally for nothing, but to progressive resume plumping goofs like Watters, the threat to our lifestyles and sea life is worth it. Look! I got offshore wind! Shower me with accolades.

We will Dave when the whales start to wash up on Hampton Beach.

This is a massive waste of time, resources, and money to pander to a misguided illusion that will cripple the country and our state.

So, what about poor people if you don’t care about whales, dolphins, lobsters, fish, or seabirds? They are already being priced out of the economy by inflation. The influx of illegal aliens is stressing their urban communities. Let’s make everything cost even more, including keeping the lights and heat on in your home. You do know they want it to all be electric, right?

I doubt he believes it or cares. He wants wind. His commission is a bunch of head-nodding bobbles. And I suspect that this project is getting fast-tracked because of the fear that should Trump win, all the federal money (on whose debt and interest advocates have enslaved future generations) might disappear.

So, there is still a chance to stop it. Even if approved, the project won’t reasonably get underway for some time, and, as has happened in states like New Jersey and Delaware, the actual final costs (ongoing operational contrast + real energy costs) will be so high that even goofballs like Watters can’t get it past his own Democrat conspirators. The forward-thinking party probably knows about all this fresh hell but is proceeding anyway while a small raft of Republicans float along for the ride (for reasons I have yet to fathom).

Ultimately, this will prove to be a costly and destructive development, fast-tracked for appearances rather than utility, and expensive even if it never gets built.

Be sure to thank David ‘Whale Killer’ Watters.

 

The post Sen. David ‘Whale Killer’ Watters appeared first on Granite Grok.

With some issues, you can’t just jump right into the pool.  You have to ease in a little at a time.

For example, we couldn’t go straight to constitutional carry.  We had to ease into it, by first having shall-issue licensing.

We couldn’t go straight to legal weed.  We had to ease into it first, by having medical marijuana, and then decriminalized pot.

A friend (who is a former state representative) just called me to tell me that, according to his sources at the statehouse, the state is planning to start selling marijuana at the state liquor stores.

My friend was laughing because years ago, during an audience with His Excellency, he proposed that the state liquor stores should sell liquor, sell marijuana, and offer prostitution.  His Excellency was shocked… and yet, here we are, two-thirds of the way there.

What’s missing for prostitution is an intermediate step, comparable to shall-issue carry licenses and medical marijuana.  Why not medical prostitution?  Or, since legislators seem to like alliteration, medical magdalenism.  (This has the added advantage that many legislators might vote for it without having any idea what it means.)

Magdalenism can be used to alleviate many of the conditions (such as depression and anxiety) that are now treated with pharmaceuticals, without any of the dangers of addiction or overdose or government mandates, and (with oversight by the state) a greatly reduced danger of the transmission of certain diseases.

Imagine how it would work.  You’d go to your doctor, who would tell you that you need to get laid.  He’d write you a prescription, and you’d drop by the state liquor store to fill it. And maybe pick up a fifth of bourbon and a bag of sativa gummies on your way out the door.

Or maybe you’d get a medical magdalenism card, which would authorize a certain number of visits over a certain period of time.

Look, it’s going to happen.  The state is leaving too much money on the table to ignore this opportunity to transmute a punishable crime into a taxable vice.  Why not get started on it sooner, rather than later?

The post Medical Prostitution appeared first on Granite Grok.

This week, the House met to vote on all remaining Senate bills. Since the Senate has been working away, quite a few bills some members strongly supported have been killed or drastically amended, one way or another. So the practice is to attach your pet bill to another that you think the Senate really wants. Any bill that has passed the House is automatically germane to any other bill, so there are lots of choices…

There was no memorial remarks this week, but one member resigned since he’d moved out of his district. We approved 65 non-controversial bills at once, including five from my committee. The first bill on the calendar, SB 558, on insurance coverage for infertility treatments, was special ordered, 325-32, to be the first one taken up after lunch. At that point it was quickly tabled, 325-32.

SB 418, increasing the penalties for refusing to take a breath test when stopped for driving under the influence, was debated, not killed, 101-253, then killed on a voice vote. A major issue was that the forms used when notifying the driver about this test were confusing and didn’t specify the consequences of refusing.

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

SB 340, allowing schools to communicate information about special education to parents via email, had a floor amendment with special ed reporting requirements. This was adopted, 184-177, and the bill passed, 186-176, and was not reconsidered, 176-188.

CACR 22, putting the first in the nation primary into the state constitution, was not tabled, 175-187, then debated, and failed to pass, 195-164 (needs 60% for a constitutional amendment.) I don’t really think it’s a constitutional matter, but I voted for it to let the voters have a say.

SB 373, easing the air tightness test requirements in the state building code, was debated on the committee amendment, which added a study committee on Native American affairs. I added a few words in support before the amendment failed, 130-215, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 440, expanding the optometrists’ scope of practice, was the hot bill from my committee. We had the committee amendment, a floor amendment that specified four procedures they would be able to do (once they’d been certified after training and mentoring,) and three speakers lined up on each side – but an opponent promptly moved to table and that motion passed, 224-137.

SB 134, setting up a separate disability pension for victims of violence, had been unanimously recommended by the Finance committee. The first floor amendment, adding HB 1111, a penalty for false reports of abuse and neglect, was explained by the sponsor and not passed, 160-201. A second floor amendment, adding HB 1620, forbidding new landfill permits for seven years, passed on a voice vote, as did the bill.

SB 217, setting up an educator incentive program for rural and under-served areas, was debated and killed, 184-174, and not reconsidered, 177-185. SB 311, providing payments in lieu of taxes for Hampstead – because the state bought the hospital there – was amended to use federal funds rather than state, then not amended to have the state pay part of localities’ pension payments, 177-183. The bill passed, 317-45.

SB 337, on doula and lactation provider certification, had a floor amendment from Dan,

replacing “racially” with “culturally,” which passed on a voice vote after he explained it. Another floor amendment would have added the content of HB 378, which told survivors of sexual assaults of their rights. That bill had passed the House on consent, but was indefinitely postponed in the Senate. This amendment did not pass, 164-195, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 352, setting up an early detection cancer screening program for firefighters, passed on voice votes after one of the firefighter representatives spoke in favor. SB 355, newborn screening for cytomegalovirus; SB 369, increased notice requirements for licensing boards; and SB 393, funding regional drinking water infrastructure, all passed without comment (or floor amendment!)

SB 369, appropriating funds to the culinary arts program at the career and technical center at Alvirne High School in Hudson, had a floor amendment offered to expand the school lunch program to be free for most children. This was debated and failed, 177-185, and SB 369 passed on a voice vote.

SB 403, on the health care workforce, passed 241-122, without debate. I (and 121 other Republicans) was opposed because this created a new, rather nebulously defined category of “community health workers” to grab more Medicaid money for fairly minor activities.

SB 404, making more child care workers eligible for child care subsidies, and SB 406, increasing the daily rate for homeless shelters, both passed without comment.

SB 409, allowing Medicaid to pay for ambulance services other than transport, had the committee amendment adopted without issue, then a floor amendment to add HB 1593, an allocation for recreation for a number of developmentally disabled people. This was explained and passed, 210-152, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 417, on out of home placements for children, was debated on the committee amendment, which strengthens the position of a non-abusive parent in such a proceeding. Currently, the law requires this parent to prove their suitability to keep their own children! The amendment passed, 186-178, the bill passed, 361-3, and was not reconsidered, 33-325.

SB 453, creating an online voter registration portal, went to interim study without comment, since we’d passed a similar House bill. SB 455, increasing Medicaid rates for prosthetic and orthotic devices, passed quietly.

SB 456, adding $300,000 to the existing student loan repayment program for nurses, was debated on the fact that it would only benefit six nurses. The bill was not passed, 178-182, killed on a voice vote, then not reconsidered, 174-186.

SB 463, access to counsel for children in dependency proceedings, passed without discussion.

At this point, Rep. Jason Gerhard, from Northfield, moved to suspend the rules and introduce a bill to demand that all legislators be allowed to visit all government facilities. This is needed because he has a criminal record and has been forbidden from the prison and the county jail; he spoke earnestly on the need for actual interactions with the people there to prevent the sorts of abuse that happened in the youth center. The motion failed, 148-216; I voted for it because he’s on my committee.

SB 476, appropriating $40 million for engineering and design of a new prison, had a floor amendment

to add HB 1711, which reports mental health judgments to the federal gun clearance database. This was debated and passed, 202-165, and the bill passed, 212-155. At this point a scuffle broke out between the member who’d moved and spoke for the floor amendment (Rep. Roy from Deerfield) and Rep. Aures from Chichester. We recessed while they calmed down, then another representative – uninvolved in the kerfuffle – moved to reprimand them for conduct unbecoming a representative. Each reprimand was tabled on a voice vote and we continued with out business.

SB 499, a motley collection of anti-hunger programs, was debated at length over the majority committee amendment, which deleted all of them except for a simplification of the application process for seniors. This amendment finally failed, 182-185, and the minority committee amendment was debated and passed, 192-178. This was similar to the majority amendment but also required HHS to work on a program for supplemental food aid in the summer for children who got free or reduced lunches from their schools. Then a floor amendment added HB 1466, emergency aid to towns, 189-181. The bill, as amended, passed 235-136 without further discussion.

SB 553, requiring the public investment pool invest in New Hampshire, is an attempt by the New Hampshire bankers to get these funds, which are currently accumulated from towns, counties, and various municipal trust funds and invested for safety and high returns. The committee amendment, which required 30% of the fund be invested in New Hampshire banks, was debated and passed on a voice vote. The bill was further debated and not passed, 176-190, then sent to interim study on a voice vote.

SB 567, requiring a report on the availability of two abortion drugs, was tabled, 302-54, before debate. SB 591, on the youth development center settlement fund, was debated on the committee amendment, which eliminated the authority to borrow money for these settlements. It passed, 187-173, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 596, on how to assess children with special needs for extra funding for childcare, had a committee amendment to convert it to a study committee on the issue. This was debated and not passed, 180-182; the bill also did not pass, 181-182; was not tabled, 182-183; killed, 187-178; and not reconsidered, 177-188. I was surprised nobody went for indefinite postponement …

SB 604, providing a death benefit for the family of Bradley Haas, who was killed in the line of duty while working as a security guard at the state hospital, had a floor amendment from Dan, which put security guards into the list of those employees eligible for this benefit. It passed after he explained it, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 503, requiring a criminal background check for fish & game guides, had a floor amendment to legalize brass knuckles, etc, for adults. This was debated and passed, 183-181. Another floor amendment wanted to add HB 1400, which forbade some parking requirements in zoning ordinances – mostly needing more than one parking space per unit. This was briefly debated and passed, 262-104; SB 503 as amended passed on a voice vote.

SB 402, allowing pharmacists to administer more vaccines and not require explicit legislative approval for each vaccine, had a floor amendment to add three vaccine-related House bills: HB 1213, which deleted the requirement child care agencies keep track of the vaccination status of each child; HB 1194, changing the definition of

“noncommunicable disease” as it related to required vaccines; and HB 1669, restricting data sharing by the immunization registry. This was debated and failed, 177-185; the bill was debated, with the main issue being that approval by the FDA and recommendation by the CDC was taking the place of legislative approval. The bill passed, 231-135. I was opposed.

SB 411, creating a study committee on emergency mental health services for minors, was briefly debated and passed on a voice vote.

SB 419, a fairly minor bill on reports about the medical cannabis program, had a committee amendment that made some technical corrections and also included the content of HB 1231, which allowed users of the program to grow their own. This passed, 236-122, and the bill passed on a voice vote.

SB 461, requiring providers to report some data on abortions, was, as expected, debated at some length and killed, 201-164. SB 505, repealing the sunset of the ban on hemp products containing THC, had a floor amendment to simply move that repeal out by three years. It was debated for longer than I thought necessary, and not passed, 172-190. A second floor amendment added the content of HB 1633, the House version of cannabis legalization and regulation; after some debate, that also failed, 87-278, and the bill passed, 242-124.

SB 559, on the vaccine association, simply adds the RSV vaccine to the existing vaccine purchase and distribution program. A floor amendment requiring that vaccine be of proven safety and efficacy was debated (really!) and failed, 176-185. After more debate, the bill passed, 192-171. I was opposed because adding a vaccine that is not safe and effective is just wrong.

SB 330, allowing the unemployment program to consider remote work, passed without comment.

SB 431, on wake surfing, was debated on the committee amendment which changed the setback to 300 feet. The amendment passed, 193-164, and the bill passed, 214-148. I supported the amendment but not the bill, since the opposition to wake surfing is driven by waterfront property owners – wind causes much more erosion than wake surfing.

SB 527, on student housing, simply created a study committee. The committee amendment added HB 1281, forbidding zoning ordinances that limit fewer than 2 people per bedroom or ban more than three unrelated people. This was debated at length, then failed, 173-179, and the bill passed, 199-154.

SB 358, invalidating out of state driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants, was debated at length, was killed, 176-174, reconsidered 176-175, then killed again! 176-174. I personally don’t have that much of a problem with these licenses, except that many of them can be used to vote – and that is a problem.

SB 469, allowing video surveillance at a park and ride facility under some circumstances, passed without comment. SB 501, on driver’s licenses for non-citizen residents, was debated on many of the same issues as SB 358. It passed, 181-169, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in favor.

SB 510, simplifying the sale of vehicles sold to Massachusetts residents (now that they use temporary plates) passed without comment.

SB 485, procedures for temporary occupational licenses for military members and their spouses, had a committee amendment to focus on licensing

boards not within the OPLC. That passed without comment, then a member moved a floor amendment with penalties for false accusations of abuse or neglect in family court. After a little talk, it passed, 173-169, and the bill passed 175-169.

SB 543, establishing the state environmental adaptation, resilience, and innovation council, was not tabled, 170-175, then debated at tedious length. It passed, 172-168.

Rather a long day, with the common good start tapering off to a weak finish. More Republicans than Democrats have a life and tend to leave early, so long days are not our friend.

Next week we’ll be meeting to concur (or not) on Senate-amended House bills. They got very busy this week and slapped a lot of bills we don’t like onto others, hoping to get their pets through one way or another.

The post Your State House appeared first on Granite Grok.

Some dude named Jared Ravizza, who identifies as “she” and claims to be “a beautiful soul who continuously works for the betterment of his community,” just went on a multiple-town stabbing spree in Massachusetts.

Jared (she) also self-describes as an artist (just like Joker in the first Tim Burton Batman Movie), so perhaps Jared’s idea of betterment is subjective. The bigoted term for it is assault with a deadly weapon, possibly with the intent to kill (see also attempted murder). And if you care, Jared committed all this alleged community betterment in Massachusetts, specifically an AMC Theater in Braintree (four stab victims, all female – ages 9 to 17), and two more at a McDonalds in Plymouth (one woman who also identifies as a woman and one man who identifies as a man).

I’m not sure what made Jared all stabby, but reports indicate no one sustained a life-threatening injury, so Jared’s not good at this either. All were treated at local hospitals. Jared is in custody after crashing his/her SUV (which he won’t need anyway, so he might as well burn that bitch, am I right?).

After the reported incident in Plymouth, Massachusetts State Police then began to pursue the vehicle before it crashed in Sandwich.

Photos shared with Boston 25 News showed the suspected SUV blackened and charred on Cotuit Road in Sandwich after catching on fire following the crash.

Four girIs, ages ranging from 9 to 17, were st*bbed by a maniac at an AMC theatre yesterday in Braintree, MA.

No details about the suspect yet… pic.twitter.com/ecPUvoNbR0

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 26, 2024

Jared is also allegedly connected to a homicide in Connecticut on which there are no details presently.

And this is the part where I remind everyone that none of Jarend’s victims was likely armed, or Jared might not have gotten quite as stabby. Pepper spray, by the way, can also be a fabulous accessory that, properly applied, makes driving from the scene difficult to impossible. I believe you can carry it in the Bay State now, and you can get it delivered tomorrow from Amazon (I am not sure about age restrictions; you should do your own leg work on that). This is still Massachusetts. It’s filled with illegal alien pedophiles and guys who say they are girls that get stabby.

So, you can’t be too careful.

I should also warn you that because this is Massachusetts, just because the state was forced to acknowledge that you have a right to defend yourself doesn’t mean they won’t arrest and prosecute you for attempting or succeeding.

The post Night Cap: Transwoman “…Who Continuously Works for the Betterment of His Community,” … Stabs Five appeared first on Granite Grok.