Thanks to everyone for the pig pile of content I’ve received recently. I promise I am not ignoring you, but there are only so many hours in a day and so much material that it makes sense to share in any given 24-hour period. I’m working to get it all out there, especially if it is NH Primary-related.

The drop dead date for that is fast approaching.

I am adding extra content in the early hours of the day and as late as Midnight to catch up, so keep it coming. I will need a lot of content for Monday and Tuesday as I will be in Manchester from Sunday until Tuesday afternoon, reporting with the 603 Alliance from Radio Row. I can blog from there, but it helps if I have help. And I’ve been bumping my content to make space for the influx.

I’d also like to encourage all of you who suddenly have so much to say to keep saying it. Don’t let the passing of the primary end your writing or reading activism. It is nice to have traffic spikes around high political holidays like the FITN primary, but as you know, the news and opinion happen every day all year round, and it all matters.

Not everyone can write an op-ed or a political piece. If you can, don’t stop. We’ll help. And as things calm down, we’ll need the content.

We’ll share your op-eds without judgment. We have had Pro-Vivek, Anti-Chrisite (no one liked him much), pro-Nikki, NeverNikki, pro-Trump, not-so-Trump, and while I’ve tried to get more DeSantis input, most of it in both directions has come from … me. It’s not my fault we didn’t share more DeSantis Rah-Rah; almost no one sent me any, but I made it clear early that we’re not taking sides in this primary, and your voice matters even if it’s not mine or Ed’s or Ray’s or Aaron’s or anyone else.

I’m not sharing Dem drivel, but just about anything else that is reasonable will get ‘Ink’ on our pages. We want to create a space for debate, and you help us do that, so thank you.

Don’t stop. Please keep it coming, especially after the primary fog of war moves away from the Granite State.

Remember, the Left never rests, so neither can we.

On an unrelated note, I think I’ve decided on a new tagline inspired by my Memoriam to Ed Nail and Jon Irish – whom I am very much missing this week.

“Liberty Is More Precious Than Life, and Tyranny Never Rests – So Neither Shall We.”

Criticism is, as always, welcome.

 

The post Quick Note to, Well – Everybody! Your Voice Matters! appeared first on Granite Grok.

A felony hit and run is a serious crime with severe consequences. It happens when someone leaves the scene of an accident without providing proper identification or assisting those who might be injured. This crime can turn a simple traffic accident into a complicated legal issue.

This crime can lead to severe consequences. In this article, we’ll talk about what can happen if you commit a felony hit and run.

Sentencing, Fines, and Probation

One big consequence of a felony hit-and-run is jail time. Depending on the state and the damages, you could spend a number of years in prison.

Another consequence is fines. The law can make you pay a lot of money for running away from an accident.

You could also be put on probation. This means you’ll have to follow strict rules to stay out of jail. These penalties can change your life.

Permanent Criminal Record

A felony hit and run can result in a permanent criminal record. This record can follow you for life and affect many parts of your future. It can make it harder to get a job because employers often check criminal histories.

Renting a home can be challenging too, as landlords may not want to rent to a felon. It’s essential to understand this consequence before making any decision.

Hiring an auto attorney can guide us in understanding the effects of a criminal record. You can view here for more reasons to hire an auto accident attorney. They are experienced in accident cases and are always ready to assist you.

License Suspension and Revocation

License suspension or revocation is a big result of a felony hit and run. Your driver’s license might be taken away for a while. If you’re caught driving without it, you’ll get into more trouble.

This can make life difficult, especially if you rely on driving to work or get necessities. It’s not just a short-term problem, either. Getting your license back can be tough, with long processes and tests.

Impact on Auto Insurance

A felony hit and run can also have a major impact on your auto insurance. Upon conviction, your insurance company may view you as a high-risk driver. This usually results in a substantial increase in your insurance premiums.

Mental and Emotional Turmoil

A felony hit and run can cause a lot of stress and worry. You might feel guilty for what you did. You might be scared about the future, too.

It can be hard to sleep or focus on your daily tasks. You may feel alone or like no one understands you. This is what we call mental and emotional turmoil.

It’s important to get help if you feel this way. You could talk to a counselor or a trusted friend. Remember, it’s okay to ask for help when you’re feeling down.

The Lasting Effects of a Felony Hit and Run

A felony hit and run is a serious crime with a lasting impact. From heavy fines and jail time, a permanent criminal record, to license suspension and emotional distress, its consequences are far-reaching. The act doesn’t only change the victim’s life but also that of the perpetrator.

Remember, the repercussions of a felony hit and run extend beyond the immediate, affecting every aspect of life. Thus, it’s crucial to realize the long-term effects and avoid such actions. It’s always better to face the situation responsibly than to flee and face harsher consequences later.

If you find this article helpful, you may visit our blog for more content.

The post Understanding the Consequences of a Felony Hit and Run appeared first on Granite Grok.

Memes, I gots memes!  Here are the ones from Monday.  And yes there will be a Friday edition too.

Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:

 

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

 

 

Coming sooner than you fear, I fear.

 

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

 

 

 

 

I have an idea.  Let’s let people like this in by the metric f*ckton.

 

 

 

 

 

It was hammered into me in my youth how dangerous butter and cream and fat were.  Margarine – made, IIRC, from bubbling hydrogen through oil at high temperature (hence the term “hydrogenated”) – was considered healthy.  Eggs were – at the time – also restricted.  Recommend this book highly:

The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this can be proven, he needs to hang.

 

 

Control the information flow, control what people believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taqiyya: Deception and Lying in Islam (thereligionofpeace.com)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA

 

 

Everyone has physical “preferences”… but there’s no factory cranking out idealized partners.  (Long story and many details omitted, my then-obsession with specific aspects of female appearance made me overlook someone who, in retrospect, really liked me.  What might have been…) Related, to me:

 

 

IMHO, these two go together.

It was thanks to the movie SE7EN that I got “turned onto” the Catholic concept of the Seven Deadly Sins (and, in parallel, the Seven Cardinal Virtues).  What I see in our society is a devolution towards sin in general, with so much of society having vanity as a lead-in.  A reminder:

 

 

And IMHO this corruption of our society is deliberate.

 

 

MassResistance is a good group fighting this.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gazans fleeing after having been warned to evacuate.

 

 

 

Amnesty? What? Let me Dr. Paul Alexander be as clear as I can be Dr. Emily Oster & all you INSANE illogical Branch COVIDian MADMEN & WOMEN; there must be no fuck*ng forgiveness, EVER, for fake COVID! (substack.com)

Magnificent rant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t want to live that long.

 

 

And you still live there because…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting… apparently built to be able to switch?

 

 

 

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

 

Pick of the Post:

 

A moment of anticipation and happiness:

 

 

 

 

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

 

Palate cleansers:

 

—

—

 

I suspect this is like a horoscope; you look for things that you want to apply to you.  Still, I hit just about every one of these.

 

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

 

Come back on Friday for more memes.  Same meme time.  Same meme channel.

 

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

 

The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

Ambidextrous by birth, professional baseball player Pat Venditte was able to pitch about equally well with either hand.

And he had a special six-fingered glove that he could use to catch with using either hand.

This gave him an advantage in that he could switch his pitching hand depending on the handedness of whatever hitter he was facing.

All other things being equal, a right-handed batter would prefer to face a left-handed pitcher, and a left-handed batter would prefer to face a right-handed pitcher.

So when facing a right-handed batter, Venditte would pitch right-handed. When facing a left-handed batter, he would pitch left-handed.

He was the game’s first ‘switch pitcher.’

This was never an issue until a game in 2008. Venditte was on the mound when switch hitter Ralph Henriquez came up to bat.  Over the course of several minutes, Henriquez kept switching between the two batter’s boxes, and Venditte kept switching between his two pitching hands, each trying to get an advantage over the other.

After several more minutes of discussion, during which it became clear that the Rules of Baseball — baseball’s version of the Constitution — did not have anything to say about the situation, the officials made a decision:  They made Henriquez choose a box to bat from, and then Venditte could choose a hand to pitch with.  And the game was able to continue.

Many people were amazed that in a game as old and as popular as baseball, it could be possible to come up with a situation that no one had ever seen before.

But to me, the most remarkable thing about the situation is that the ruling by the officials did not create a rule that any other officials were bound to follow.  It was left to the Rules Committee — baseball’s version of Congress — to decide how this kind of situation should be handled in the future.

(That committee, by the way, came up with a rule that differed from the ruling on the field.  From now on, they said, it’s the pitcher who has to choose a hand to pitch with before the at-bat begins, and then the batter can react accordingly.  This gives the advantage to the batter. It would be more fair, I think, to make them play rock-paper-scissors before each at-bat, but it’s not up to me.)

And it’s remarkable because it provides such a perfect model for how judges should act in our courts.

Consider the case of Francois Momolu Khalil, who was convicted of raping a woman in Minnesota. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that, for technical reasons, while Khalil’s actions were reprehensible, they were not consistent with the statutory definition of rape, so his conviction was overturned.

The outcry was immediate. Almost everyone seemed to think that the conviction should stand because, obviously, the legislature meant for the definition of rape to cover Khalil’s actions, and so the court should have just declared that what the law meant was different from what it said.

But the Justices said that it wasn’t their job to rewrite statutes from the bench… especially when the words of the statute would remain unchanged.

Which is exactly how it should work. But it’s so rare for this to happen that it was shocking — bordering on incomprehensible —  to most people.

It’s clear to everyone in MLB that the rules committee has all rule-making power so that it can make rules.  On the other hand, the officials in a game have only the power to make rulings that apply at a particular moment. These rulings don’t set precedents. They aren’t binding on anyone. They just allow the current game to continue without affecting what happens in other games.

That is, it’s the job of the officials to see that, to as great an extent as possible, the game is played in accordance with the rules as they have been written down.

Contrast this with how our judges operate, especially in appeals courts. They may decide, for example, that limiting the number of rounds you can carry in a magazine is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. From then on, that is the law, regardless of what the relevant constitutions — our government’s versions of the Rules of Baseball — have to say about it.

In a nutshell, the officials in baseball are there to enforce the rules as created by the rules committee, and to do that, they may issue rulings that do not become new rules.  n contrast, the judges in our courts believe they are there to make up new rules on the fly — even when those are in blatant conflict with the rules as written down in constitutions and statutes.

In particular, with the part of the Constitution that clearly and unambiguously assigns all legislative power to Congress… and no legislative power to the courts themselves.

All of which is to say, our courts should learn from our sports.

 

The post Our Courts Should Learn From Our Sports appeared first on Granite Grok.

Every presidential season, I tell myself I should save all the mailers and see how much I end up with when the primary ends, but I never do it. This year would have been epic, but with a week to the Primary, things appear to have gotten out of hand.

Today, in my mailbox were 13 items. Ten of these were political flyers. They all had Nikki Haley’s name on them, but contrary to her ads, none were from Trump. Only one was negative. The other nine were pro-Haley. SFA Fund Inc. paid for seven of them. AFP was responsible for the other two. The Anti-Nikki flyer was from Never Back Down.

SFA Fund, Inc. is a pro-Haley (No Sh!t, really?) Hybrid PAC, according to the SEC. It’s based in Houston, Texas, and the Treasurer is Katie Reid. It has raised over 18.7 million and spent only 1.64M of that (on mailers, perhaps). If you’d like to see who the donors are, Open Secrets and a nice list here – There are 348 records if you plan to scroll through them.

AFP, we’ve said our peace about them, so no more comment there.

Then there’s the one negative mailer for this day’s mail. Never Back Down focused on the sale of land to China, which is always troubling and more so now than ever, but they are going to have to be better than that if they want DeSantis to have a chance at grabbing some anyone-but-Trump independents away from Haley. They might see about convincing a few more Republicans as well. DeSantis was never more popular here than when he’d never been here, but since then, his polling has declined.

I saw him in person a few times. He says the right things and has great ideas, but something is missing. He doesn’t strike me as a great orator, and maybe that’s why he’s having more of a challenge despite the ideas on which he is running. It’s just a thought. I expect the DeSantis fans will be after me for it, but what else might the matter be? Substance doesn’t win elections, and that’s not a new problem.

I wish him the best, but he’s not selling America, and the polling shows it. He underperformed in Iowa and seems likely to do much worse here, which won’t bode well for the states that follow. But I hope he stays in the race. We need a not-Haley candidate who is also a not-Trump candidate, and he is it. And no, this wasn’t meant to start as a critique of DeSantis, but I had much higher hopes for him on this stage, and perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

And yes, I still think this is Trump’s to lose, and I expect him to walk away with it in a landslide short of an actual guilty verdict in court that doesn’t go his way, and even that might not stop the nomination train.

And Haley, lots of flyers. Good Strategy. Younger, positive vision. And she might be the political Left’s favorite politician. Mary Rooke, whose work we often share, is reporting that Democrats in Iowa switched parties to vote for Haley in the Primary.

When you’re running to be the Republican Presidential nominee, the last people you expect to boost your ballot numbers are the ones actively hoping you and all your colleagues fail, but that’s precisely who propelled Haley to win the only county Trump lost in Monday’s Iowa primary race.

CBS News’ @tonydokoupil reports from a precinct in Johnston, Iowa, where some registered Democrats filled out forms to switch to the Republican Party to participate in the caucus: “They ran out of those forms.”

“This room was in favor of Nikki Haley.” pic.twitter.com/BapNjVGxdh

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 16, 2024

We had over 3000 Democrats switch to meddle in the Republican Primary in NH. It’s not enough to make a Yuge difference, but they must love all those mailers.

The post Trying Too Hard? – I Received Nine Pieces of Pro-Haley Mail in One Day appeared first on Granite Grok.

Fani Willis, the political hack prosecutor in Georgia persecuting … not a typo: persecuting, not prosecuting Trump and his supporters for the “crimes” of complaining that the rigged 2020 election was rigged, has been accused, essentially, of using her office to launder money to her boyfriend.

Her response: I should be held to a different standard because of my skin color.

And … she is. If this were a white male prosecutor who had hired his girlfriend to prosecute Hunter Biden, the Regime-Media, Big-Tech, etcetera would have already crucified him. Fani, on the other hand, gets to play the victim.

NEW: FANI WILLIS speaks after allegations of paying lover to prosecute Trump:

“You cannot expect black women to be perfect. We need to be allowed to stumble. We need grace. We are all sinners…”pic.twitter.com/YpP6tYH8zw

— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) January 14, 2024

Fani Willis wants you to believe having an affair with a man she gave $700,000 of taxpayer money too right after he divorced his wife so he could be her chief Trump prosecutor, is “doing the will of Jesus.” pic.twitter.com/uablaZeqmT

— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) January 15, 2024

DA Fani Willis breaks her silence on the scandalous affair and improper use of taxpayer funds:

"You cannot expect black women to be perfect and save the world"

"We need to be allowed to stumble"

pic.twitter.com/FqRz0CGFav

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 14, 2024

Fani Willis, who allegedly broke up her boyfriend’s marriage & paid him $650k to investigate Trump, spoke at church today in Atlanta & broke her silence. “You cannot expect black woman to be perfect and save the world,” she said. This case is OVER. pic.twitter.com/XGrIsOzruJ

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 15, 2024

 

The post Fani Says It’s Racist To Call Her Corrupt appeared first on Granite Grok.

Mary Maxwell: Hello ET, I have never interviewed an Extra-Terrestrial before. In fact, it’s difficult for me to believe that there are creatures out there who are somewhat like humans.

ET: Please feel free to express your doubts; that way, we might win over more readers.

Mary: To be honest, ET, I haven’t any desire to prove your real existence. I just want to tap your intellect.

ET: Shoot.

Mary: Let’s start by discussing overpopulation. What do you think is an ideal number of humans to be occupying the Earth at any given time?

ET: To answer that, I would need to know what kind of resources the Earth has. You humans eat food three times a day, right?

Mary: I eat three meals a day, but I live in a city where it has always been easy to get employment, and thus money to buy food. Elsewhere on the globe there are some very poor people who strive to get one meal a day.

ET: How much agricultural land does your planet have?

Mary: There is plenty of land space, but fertile soil is on the decline. A few decades ago, we switched from family farms to “Big Ag.” It looks to me that the big corporations lack planning for the future. They don’t take care of the soil.

ET: How do your three meals get from the farm to your dining table?

Mary: Long-distance transport is involved, usually by truck, so I am worried that a gasoline shortage may cause me to go hungry.

ET: What may cause the gasoline shortage?

Mary: I recall that in 1973, there were fights at the pumps, as gasoline was hard to get. This was explained by international decrees from OPEC — Oil and Petroleum Exporting Countries. Most of those were in the Middle East. Today, however, the decision to curtail supply might be made simply to cause starvation.

ET: Besides growing the food and delivering it to people, what else made you ask about overpopulation?

Mary: Well, I’d get ‘crowned’ for bringing it up — it’s politically incorrect. But here it is: I think we are not able to manage a huge population. We are not cut out for it. Humans need small or small-ish communities.

ET: Ah, I see I went off on a wrong track, responding to your query about an ideal population by treating it as resource-related.

Mary: No, wait. The resource problem will come back into it. I have in mind the way a large group breaks into two “enemies.” Probably, that happens because someone wants it to happen. Then, since we evolved for hostilities, our instinct takes over. You can see it all around you today. I think it is deliberate — it’s “policy.”

ET: Policy by whom? Wait. I can answer that myself in a general way: Policy by anyone who can gain from it.

Mary: Naturally, that is the correct answer. But now ask me what it is they will gain.

ET: I’m not stupid, Mary. I know that survival’s the thing. Those who are high enough to cause wars and to decide how the food will reach you are doing it so they can stay in the game.

Mary: Spot on, spot on. Most of my friends think the driving force is greed. But I feel sure the ones who have made it to a very high position know that the masses could turn on them. The poor buggers nowadays have to keep facing new challenges from below.

ET: I bet they face it with anything feasible to keep folks distressed. Disease, unemployment, and natural disasters.

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

Mary: Yes, and war.

ET: Many wars are fought to keep the weapons makers in business. Or do you think that, too, is “policy.”

Mary: I think almost everything is policy. I also think the buggers are fairly unimaginative; if a policy has been successful for them in the past, they unashamedly use it again, despite a group of thinkers having outed them for it.

ET: I suppose you’d agree that when Group A is fighting Group B, the real instigator of the war is Mr C, who isn’t on either side.

Mary: Yes, but that’s hard for most people to see. I found out only in the 21st century that the so-called Cold War, which ran for most of my life, was fake insofar as the two Superpowers were in cahoots. It first came to my attention from Antony Sutton’s book “National Suicide.”

ET: It was a rather ingenious thing. The real bosses who ran both the US and the USSR were able to commit all sorts of violence in the Third World on the premise that “we, the good guys, had to prevent a takeover by Commies” or “by capitalists” if you were on the other side.

Mary: Perhaps even more ingenious is the ability of the “World Economic Forum” to infiltrate all parliaments. You will have heard Klaus Schwab say, on a microphone, that he is pleased to have put some ministers into Trudeau’s Cabinet.

ET: Probably the key to false wars In America is that Congress is so infiltrated, or the Reps are so intimidated by their handlers, that they refuse, outright, to follow the Constitution, which plainly says that only Congress, not a president, can declare war.

Mary: Oh yeah. I have filed two lawsuits against presidents for disobeying the rules, but the courts refuse to be the arbiter between the Legislature and the Executive.

ET: How is it not the Judiciary’s job to uphold the Constitution?

Mary: Beats me. Hmm. You could probably push me right over into saying that the judges work directly for the same bosses as do Congresspersons and the occupant of the White House.

ET: Shall we get back to the food issue?

Mary: Frankly, Sir, I get back to the food issue three times a day. Do you recall a few months ago that there was an “outbreak” of disasters at food-processing plants? The media managed to report each instance as unrelated to the others. We certainly did not see the government stepping in to thwart this trend. So, yes, there must be a plan in the works to put us all on a “diet.”

ET: Earlier, you hinted at a connection between the planned food shortage and our need to live in small-ish communities.

Mary: Think of it this way. In New Hampshire, where I live, the libertarians push the ideal of freedom. Who could disagree? To live life the way you choose is a great thing. Several generations back in New Hampshire, you’d be in a small community that could decide how to grow and sell food. But right now, in a city such as Concord, NH, or Manchester, people must get food from a supermarket. That entails kowtowing to BigAg, even if it’s not a visible kowtowing.

ET: So where is the ability of citizens to influence the government to change that?

Mary: It’s bigger than a breadbox, ET. Today, the folks shopping in a Manchester supermarket get their salary from a business that may also be hopelessly big. If I waved a magic wand and said, “Let those big companies collapse,” the Manchester folk might go foodless. That’s why I asked for your opinion about population size.

ET: So you don’t really mean “What Is Earth’s carrying capacity?” “How many people can be supported by Earth?”

Mary: Well, that too. We have been swept into modern life in, say, a mere four centuries since the Mayflower. And swept further into an economic whirlwind since the computer became widely used in the 1980s. As an individual, I enjoyed many benefits from that, including what I call “frequent-flyer syndrome. But I throw away plastic milk cartons that end up in the ocean, strangling fish. “My Type” is a heavy burden on the planet.

ET: Maybe you want me to calculate “What is the Earth’s carrying capacity for Your Type?”

Mary: Eeks! I try to avoid that morally distressing question. In 1976 I was studying environmentalism at Johns Hopkins and the teachers were excited about the September article by Nathan Keyfitz, in “The Scientific American.” I recall him noting that few people in India had washing machines, but if it came, that would be a big drawer of water (about 25 gallons per wash). I’m sure I hoped they wouldn’t get washing machines, despite it being a “must have” in my own dear life.

ET: India did then get washing machines. That also put paid to the occupation of the “dhobi’s” who did a sort of door-to-door laundry service, washing shirts in the river.

Mary: If you can focus on only one country, you could say, “The carrying capacity of India is such that a move towards washing machines should be curtailed.” Even the livelihood of the dhobis could be discussed by the community. But now we don’t have that sort of small economic community. In the US, it’s mostly Everyman for himself. This deprives us of a lot.

ET: It hasn’t deprived you of your frequent flyer hobby.

Mary: Pretty soon, I will lose such privileges. So, really, my question to you is: Can you help us come up with a plan for a more sensible life?

ET: Such a question! I suggest maybe you start by putting forth the issues you have named in a separate way (avoidance of war, provision of food, protection of the land), although caring citizens will soon see that they are connected.

Mary: Thank you. Yes, it would help to say: “Hey, what’s with the apparent plan to cause massive food shortages in the United States?” Or “Should our soldiers be rushing off to a war that Congress had no part in declaring?” But Congress stays away from such matters.

ET: This may be a good way to reveal the way Congress, the president, and judges, are not
loyal to the Constitution.

Mary: Definitely, that is a basic issue itself. In fact, if most members of government are not governing us per the parchment, then we don’t have a country. The existence of the US is the outcome of decisions made by the people precisely on the basis of that original agreement.

ET: This could be the year in which Congress largely changes hands. Steve Kirsch has laid out the “magnificent seven” members of Congress here.

Mary: Please, God, make it happen. Give peace a chance. And keep your humble servant’s three-times-a-day program in good repair. Gracias!

Editor’s Note: Mary Maxwell is on the New Hampshire Republican ballot for the 2024 presidential primary.

The post Night Cap: Presidential Candidate Asks an Extra-Terrestrial for Advice on War, Food Shortages, etc. appeared first on Granite Grok.

You live in a strange world when existing laws regarding obscenity and age-appropriate material are ineffectual at preventing adults from exposing children to explicit sexual content. But that’s where we are. If you want to show porn to kids, work in a public school.

That’s a great loophole, given that the majority of pedophiles try to find work in public schools. That’s where the children are, by law, they have to be there, and in some states, they make it as difficult as possible to let them out of that paddock. Homeschools, private schools, and charter schools are constantly under attack from a government more interested in how it has deformed education than anything that amounts to learning.

And ironically, not all porn is allowed in schools, but that is not book banning.

Into this circus atmosphere comes HB 1419, an act “relative to prohibiting obscene or harmful sexual materials in schools.” [Public Hearing: 01/18/2024 09:30 am LOB 205-207] It defines and outlines things that are otherwise common sense definitions reiterated to make the educator-class understand that showing kids cartoons of sex (or descriptions of same) is inappropriate, mentally disturbing, and should be illegal (generalized for brevity).

Call to Action! – Keep reading past the video to see how you can help right now!

Again, why we have to do this is a question that can only be answered by groomers and pedos in the public schools and their political progressive defenders. The latter will be nearly universal in their opposition, which will make for good copy.

Democrats insist on exposing kids to sexually explicit content. Something that, outside the school room, gets you arrested. If you are unclear about the distinction, Allison Dyer of Nashua made time to frame that distinction in a recent video.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v44kizz","div":"rumble_v44kizz"});

 

And fear not, groomers and pedos, and those with Munchhaeus by proxy, you can still order these ‘books,’ just like 50 Shades of Gray, online, allowing you unfettered access in seconds (digitally) or a day or two (for hard copy fans). Just don’t go thinking you can walk up to some kid at random and share it with them. As Allison points out, that might get you arrested.

Now!

Would you like to help advance this bill? You can without leaving the comfort of wherever you feel comfortable using your phone, laptop, or desktop PC. Heck, you can do it if you’re uncomfortable or pleasantly indifferent to your current state.

• Click this link to go to the NH House calendar.
• Scroll down and select “Remote Sign In”
• Fill in the requested information, Name, Address, etc.
• On the Calendar below those fields select January 18th
• Scroll down and using the drop-down, choose the education committee.
• Choose Bill number HB1419.
• Identify yourself (as a member of the public unless you are one of the other selections).
• Select ‘I support the Bill” – then scroll to the bottom and click submit.

You don’t have to write or say anything, but we’d appreciate it if you would share this post or the link everywhere. A strong showing of support from NH Residents is essential to help move this legislation forward.

The Dems do this with a passion, so we must too. The Children need us to defend them. I hope you’ll help.

 

 

The post Call to Action: Relative To Prohibiting Obscene or Harmful Sexual Materials in Schools appeared first on Granite Grok.

A proposed constitutional amendment (CACR 12) has been put forward, which would amend Article 83 of the state constitution by replacing the word ‘cherish’ with the word ‘cherish.’

Say what?

The idea is that currently, the word means whatever it meant in 1784. And we need to replace it with whatever it means in 2024. That is, we would leave the word the same but change the meaning.

Which is what courts do all the time. (It says ‘fee’?  Well, it means ‘tax’. It says ‘shall not’? Well, it means ‘may sometimes, with our approval.’  And so on.)  So it’s clever. But too clever by half.

The amendment doesn’t specify a particular reference work for either definition. But if we look at the etymology of the word, we find that in the 14th century, it meant

hold as dear; treat with tenderness and affection

And in 2024, it means

to treat with affection and tenderness; hold dear

So unless the definition changed before 1784 and then changed back, the meaning has been constant, and there would be absolutely no significance to the proposed ‘change.’

Which means it fails even as an attempt at humor.

But it also completely misses the larger point, which is that we could change the word ‘cherish’ to a word that isn’t even a word, like ‘sorbelate’ or ‘presmonify’, and it wouldn’t really matter.  In the clause in question,

it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools,

the crucial word is the word and, highlighted above.

That is, whatever ‘cherish’ — or ‘sorbelate’, or ‘presmonify’ — means, it must mean the same thing for both seminaries and public schools.

And it’s less important what you can do to cherish these institutions, than what you can’t do.

In particular, the state can’t fund, operate, or regulate a seminary. So it can’t do any of those things for public schools, either.

However, all three branches of government have been acting as if

A and B

means

B but not A

If we’re going to ‘fix’ Article 83 by either changing or affirming the definition of a word, then the word to focus on is and, rather than cherish.

And once we’ve straightened that out, we can look, in the same article,

Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it.

…at the word all — which, in any dictionary, would include the current government monopoly on schools.

 

The post Article 83 – It’s Not about ‘cherish’, It’s about ‘and’ appeared first on Granite Grok.

For an oldster like me, the current inner-city violence and destruction is only the next stage of an agenda that was underway even before my male-gender birth. Certain past highlights now stand out as former unnoticed signals yet have planted the formational seeds for today’s hateful attitudes and cultural cleansing.

One such event needs to be used as a comparative then versus now lesson. This was JFK’s memorable 1961 Inaugural Address in which he stated: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This preceded his equally famous, “And so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

WOW, sacrifice, God Bless America, and Mom’s apple pie flow throughout. However, this national pledge has grown some “maybes” and “what ifs,” which, in hindsight, were preparatory signs of today’s dysfunctional state.

Some who were elected have been impatient and have juiced up this agenda, yet it’s still the same dysfunctional cloud, regardless of its rate of speed. Past moments captured various officials, including Presidents, stating that the most solemn duty of the Oval Office is “having to send men off to war.” Given this acknowledgment, coupled with our Constitutional mandate for declaring war prior to that “most solemn duty,” past actions were either a general dysfunctional act(s) or were inherently criminal!

I fully accept that with today’s super sensitive atmosphere, neither term is welcomed, but being offended is not illegal and sometimes necessary. Since this topic involves many tens of thousands of lives, being offended is the least of our concerns, as it should be when the law is hanging in the balance.

This slice of American waywardness is but one example. It seems that policies are instituted until other priorities arise. This was perfectly clear when our support for a “friend” and our “oppose any foe” devotion faded from the pledge.

JFK’s “liberty” has now been recalculated to beachfront resorts on the China Sea, along with doing commerce with communist regimes. It just might be that the word “dysfunctional” is, in fact, too soft!

Concern should be directed to the government’s continuing dereliction of duty since it remains appropriate with today’s quagmires, all of which were fomented gradually as test cases at their intervening level of importance. Also, this issue of war, centering around the needless loss of American lives, ceased to be important when today’s volunteer military lessened both public interest and debate.

However, closer to home, this is not the case with today’s latest and highly publicized dysfunction. Supposedly, the dearest and most precious possession that brings us meaning with its joy and nurturing is the birth of our children. This is natural, desired, and, above all, a societal requirement. But not so today! Without getting into the dysfunctional corridors of selecting one’s gender, let’s just say again the word dysfunctional doesn’t do it justice.

I’ll wrap up this un-Godly nonsense by pointing to the current crop of dysfunctional parents who themselves have, in many cases, been similarly influenced in their youth through their own wayward rearing. As previously stated, for too long, all of this comes and goes quietly as “Joe Q Public” goes about his or her daily functions. This “let it be” attitude has become fundamental, one which, in all likelihood, was that communist singer’s intent. Nevertheless, it serves to weaken America’s resolve for all that is worth tackling.

Today, the tougher the chore, the less likely it’ll be addressed. Modern man and woman now choose to “let it be!” Our country wasn’t founded, nor did she gain freedom with easy tasks. Those Americans were proud, determined, and hardy. They made friends with the difficult since chopping wood determined warmth and dinner.

In contrast, our modern conveniences have brought an unhealthy degree of ease into our living. Such luxury often produces boredom, which in turn usually breeds either discontent, jealousy, immorality, hatred, or violence. What is missing is the inner peace and contentment derived from one’s pursuits of a purposeful, challenging, and fulfilling life, all while being guided by his or her faith.

 

The post Offensive but Accurate appeared first on Granite Grok.

Saturday afternoon at “the Aud” in Barre I attended the Republican Party of Vermont’s committee meeting. My reasons for attending were twofold, namely to get a sense of the party (I am a lifelong Independent) and listen for their pitch to me as a potential candidate for the Senate or House from my progressive stronghold in Windsor County.

I rode to the event with my long-time friend Joe Trottier, who is also looking to run as a Republican for the state house now that perpetual incumbent Kevin “Coach” Christie appears to be stepping down due to health concerns. Christie, a Democrat, is one of the most likable human beings you will ever meet, whether you agree with his politics or not. Joe can be described similarly, although his personality is a bit more quixotic compared to Christie’s blue-collar statesmanship.

Entering the conference room, the bustling sound of old friends and lively hopefuls filled the air. Big names of the Vermont GOP, aside from Phil Scott, all seemed to be in attendance. Paul Dame, Gerald Malloy, Scott Milne, and others who have spent their years grinding away at the political wheel worked the room deftly as any Vermont Republican might, politely and with a smile and savvy unique to Green Mountaineers. As a flatlander from the West Coast, I stood out like a sore thumb for my lack of a plaid shirt, Carhart pants, and sensible winter boots. 

A brief conversation with Mr. Dame reassured me he at least understands his role as a political leader. Strong eye contact and sharp listening skills are accompanied by political insight into strategy and need. After an inviting invocation to the Lord asking for His blessing on the day’s event, followed by a hearty pledge of allegiance, Dame gave the VT GOP equivalent of a State of the Union address couched as a motivational speech. His overriding message? If we don’t establish some party unity, the progressives are going to continue to eat our lunch and tell us we have to pay for it. Neither the prayer nor his plea would win the day.

After a run through the respective county roll call, where individual names were confirmed for member representatives to vote on the meeting’s issues, the procedure made it alphabetically all the way to the last county, mine, Windsor – when the fireworks began. Upon calling the name John McGovern as chair of Windsor County, an “objection” was raised, followed by a series of back-and-forth “points of order” and “appeals” until a man from Windsor County stood up and read a letter describing the nature of the objection.

Trying hard to follow the technical language that invoked “Robert’s rules” and other party statutes, it was clear the Windsor Committee was in disarray. It seemed the committee had swollen thanks to new membership, and many of them had grown disenchanted with Mr. McGovern for what they described as “dereliction of duty.” It was implied the committee’s attempt to force McGovern to resign was wrongfully nullified thanks in part to both McGovern’s unwillingness to recognize their authority and the state GOP inconveniently scheduling a meeting for the same day as theirs. The next twenty or so minutes saw “point of order” after “point of order” and “appeal” after “appeal” until McGovern was asked to explain his side in the matter. An older man with a gaunt and wizened Ivy League presentation began his defense by reminiscing his grandfather’s wisdom “never to get into a pissing contest with a skunk.”  Amidst groans and protests, he attempted to backtrack the comment, but the insult had been made. 

A lengthy explanation of the vote to recognize McGovern as the chair and rightful voter passed when a man at the back of the room launched into an expletive-laced complaint where he slammed a chair into the wooden floor calling “b***s**t,” Dame “a Democrat,” and referred to “the uniparty” as the Windsor clan stood up and began to walk out. To Dame’s credit, I thought he handled the entire ordeal with dignity and fairness.

Outside, I overheard McGovern explain to another attendee that he didn’t want Trump on the ballot and to oppose Trump is “pro-Republican.”  This struck me as odd given Trump’s overwhelming popularity with the national party, and when I asked him about it, McGovern became defensive and shortly used terms like “crazy” to dismiss the case for Trump or his supporters. My next question to him was, “Do you think Joe Biden won the 2020 election?” to which he asserted he absolutely did. I asked if he’d seen D’nesh D’souza’s “2,000 Mules”, and he told me he went to Dartmouth with D’nesh, hadn’t seen the film, and dismissed both as “crazy.”

Moments later, another man from the meeting came out to McGovern’s case, which shortly turned into his describing a friend who he trusts with his life but is “nuts” for believing 9/11 was an inside job before demonizing Alex Jones’ involvement with Sandy Hook. Neither point had anything to do with Trump or the coming election. It was an emotional appeal, given he’d cried the day of the shooting and took the time to carve out the names of the children in a memorial he would personally take to Newtown, CT. 

Surely, the man’s gesture was sincere, but it doesn’t warrant labeling those who question either story as “crazy.”  There is enough public evidence of our government being weaponized against its citizens and media systematically lying about it to at least give credence to those who question the popular stories.  In fact, that’s what the constitution these conservatives claim to want to conserve is built upon – the necessity of protecting dissenting voices.  I can only imagine how many Brits and crown sympathizers referred to the revolutionaries as “crazy” to go up against the established colonial power. 

Dismissing others as “crazy” and “nuts” has become the easiest way to avoid in-depth political conversations. No appeal to reason or additional facts and evidence can be mounted to take the dialogue further with people who use diagnostic terms to degrade or belittle people with differing opinions. What results is the Hatfield’s vs. McCoy’s effect which exists already between Republicans and Democrats, though now appears to be bifurcating the Republican party – never Trumpers vs. MAGA.

I went outside to ask the Windsor delegate for more clarification, and they refused on the grounds they speak as a group, so I shared my contact info in hopes I would have the chance to understand the deeper nature of the rift.

As an outsider looking into potentially supporting the Vermont GOP as a viable candidate, I was left disappointed at their seeming inability to set aside what are ultimately petty differences when faced with the real political threat – the supermajority in Montpelier and the establishment in D.C.  These are the questions I hope they’ll consider:

How can you expect to win if you can’t even finish a simple meeting without devolving into chaos?

If Trump won in 2016 and received a record 12 million more votes in 2020, why would you not back such a strong candidate?

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the lowest approval ratings in history. Biden is demonstrably mentally unfit, and Harris isn’t taken seriously as a candidate by her own party. Can you not see the Democrats have the weakest candidates in their history, yet you’re letting them dictate to you about likely the strongest you’ve had in Trump?

Is it possible you have adopted the very talking points given by a media that ranks as the second least trusted institution in the country, behind only Congress (who championed the “insurrection” narrative)?

If more than one million Democrats left the party to become Republicans following the 2020 election, what does that tell you?

If over half the country thinks the election was stolen, including some 30 percent of Democrats, why would you oppose the most popular Republican candidate?

From my vantage point, the Republican Party has never been in a better position to take back ground in the state of Vermont. From the unpopularity of DEI and the climate agenda, the failing education system, the attack on families, parents, and gender, the rising cost of gas and housing, and the soaring crime rate, winning back seats in Congress should be easier than getting an extra mail-in ballot.

The problem doesn’t appear to be a lack of unity but a lack of courage to call out the actually crazy party – the one that calls mothers “birthing persons,” says women can have penises while not being able to define a woman, drag-queens should read to children, children should have sex organs removed, we should ban gas-stoves yet tolerate genocidal language regarding Jews, the people who ended slavery are inherently racist, ad nauseum – are the same ones saying Trump is the biggest threat to America – and you agree with them?

What say you grand ol’ party?

The Lord from whom you sought guidance says this:

 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5:15)

The post VT GOP – Call Me Crazy but…. appeared first on Granite Grok.

With nearly 36,000 square miles, you can put the other five New England states inside Maine’s borders. Madawaska is a little town located at the top of Aroostook County and is the northernmost town in New England. It is home to around 3,800 residents.

If those residents wanted to take the 400-mile ride to Kittery, the southernmost town in Maine, in their snappy Tesla sedan, they would have to add about 6 hours of charge time to the 6 hours of drive time. An EV would double the time of the trip, and that is IF they could find a charging station. Maine has only 216 high-speed charging stations but over 1,200 gas stations. Using a 6-pump average per station makes 7,200 gas pumps versus 216 charging stations.

Does that sound like the Maine infrastructure is ready for an EV Mandate? I think not. But that is precisely what the Democrat leadership is trying to ram down Mainer’s throat. By the way, Maine is also a frigid state in Winter, and EV batteries lose a tremendous amount of energy running the heaters to keep the batteries warm and viable. A long stretch of RTE 95 is the last place you want to spend a cold winter night in a dead EV, but it will happen.

The Maine Board of Environmental Protection had been scheduled to vote on December 21 on the Advanced Clean Cars II Program, which initially proposed to require 43% of new vehicles sold in Maine to be zero emission by the 2027 model year, increasing to 82% by 2032. The December 18 storm closed the capitol and delayed the vote. A slight change has been made, and the 2028 Model year has replaced the 2027.

They can play with dates and percentages. But I still question the constitutionality of the government mandating the type of car we can own or which appliances we can choose. There seems to be a disregard for the Constitution at the Federal and State levels. Where did the government get this power or liberty, whether it is the type of car or leaf blower, replacing our gas with an electric stove, or controlling our preference for air conditioners? What about our liberty?

According to independent surveys, only 6% of Americans prefer EVs, a far cry from a majority. Hertz announced this week they are selling off 20,000 EVs and restocking with gas-powered vehicles. Hertz customers do not want EVs because of the limitations on where to travel and the extra travel time with frequent charging. The company is losing millions because it jumped on the government EV train.

America was built on the free market and free means of choice, not mandates. There are over 280 million cars in America that the Biden Administration is rendering worthless. Not only will our cars be of no value when forced to replace them with an EV, but where will we scrap nearly 300 million personal vehicles, and when will the government turn its attention to commercial and agricultural? It is unsurprising, but Biden did not think this whole scenario through. He also didn’t get the advice of the car industry or, more importantly, the drivers. Biden, Buttigieg, Kerry, and Granholm know better than we do. The problem is they consistently prove themselves wrong. This case is just another, and Maine is on the wrong side of right or wrong, too.

The post Bear Pond Conservative Chronicles: Why Do Democrats Think Maine Is Ready For EVs appeared first on Granite Grok.

Effective presentation skills are essential for anyone who wants to convey ideas, influence decisions, and make an impact. Whether you’re speaking in front of a large audience or presenting to a small group, mastering the art of public speaking can elevate your professional and personal endeavors.

In this blog, we’ll explore What is Presentation Skills and some fundamental principles of Presentation Skills that can help you become a more confident and persuasive speaker.

Table of Contents

• Know Your Audience
• Structure Your Content
• Engage Your Audience
• Practice, Practice, Practice
• Use Visual Aids Wisely
• Manage Nervousness
• Seek Feedback and Learn from Experience
• Embrace Authenticity
• Continuous Improvement
• Conclusion

Know Your Audience

Delivering an effective presentation starts with knowing your audience. Take into account their experience, passions, and expertise in the area. Make your message more relevant and interesting by adjusting the content and delivery method to appeal to your target demographic. Be it stakeholders, customers, or coworkers, understanding your audience will enable you to engage with them more deeply. 

Structure Your Content

It is simpler for your audience to follow and comprehend a well-structured presentation. Start your presentation with a concise opening that summarises the key ideas you will cover and explains its purpose. Use titles and transitions to help your audience navigate your presentation as you arrange your material into logical parts. Finish on a high note that captures the essence of your argument and makes an impact. 

Engage Your Audience

Keeping your audience interested and paying attention requires engagement. Include interactive features, humour, or narrative to add interest to your presentation. Bring up questions, promote involvement, and include your audience in the conversation. This keeps people interested and makes the encounter more significant and unforgettable. 

Practice, Practice, Practice

You’ll become more polished and self-assured the more you practise your presentation. Practise your delivery many times, focusing on your body language, tempo, and vocal tone. To pinpoint your areas for growth, practise in front of a mirror or videotape yourself. Seeking input from mentors or coworkers might help you get insightful opinions. 

Use Visual Aids Wisely

Slides, movies, or props are visual aids that may improve your presentation and support your main points. But it’s crucial to utilise them sensibly and avoid becoming too dependent on them. Use your visual aids to support, not detract from, your spoken remarks. Keep them straightforward and uncomplicated. Make sure they are clear to see and comprehend from any angle in the space. 

Manage Nervousness

Although being anxious before a presentation is normal, controlling your anxiety is crucial to giving a polished presentation. Before you talk, try relaxation exercises to help you de-stress, including deep breathing or visualisation. Instead of concentrating on your nervousness, think about your audience and the message you want to deliver. Recall that anxiety is often seen as excitement, so accept it as an indication that you are invested in your presentation. 

Seek Feedback and Learn from Experience

Ask your audience or other coworkers for comments after your presentation. Request detailed input on things like delivery, engagement, and clarity. Use this input to pinpoint your presentation’s strong points and areas for development, then apply it to subsequent ones. Over time, you’ll improve your presenting abilities and become a more polished speaker by drawing lessons from each event. 

Embrace Authenticity

Being real is essential to building a relationship of trust with your audience. In your presentation, be yourself and allow your personality to come through. Sharing personal tales or experiences relevant to your subject may establish a more intimate connection with your audience. Authenticity increases credibility and trust, amplifying your message’s impact and recall. Adopting authenticity also makes you feel more at ease and self-assured, which calms anxieties and improves your performance in general.

Continuous Improvement

Just like any other talent, presentation abilities may be developed with time. Adopt a mentality that emphasises ongoing development and look for chances to improve your presentation skills. Enrol in training sessions for presenting skills, seminars, or workshops to learn fresh perspectives and methods. Remain receptive to criticism and be prepared to modify and advance your strategy in light of new information. You can remain on top of trends and provide more memorable presentations that connect with your audience by always working to improve your presenting abilities.

Conclusion

Gaining presentation proficiency is an invaluable skill that will help you in both your personal and professional life. You may develop into a more certain and convincing speaker by knowing your audience, organising your material, including them, rehearsing often, using visual aids, controlling your anxiety, getting feedback, and learning from mistakes. Using these core ideas will enable you to provide presentations that educate, motivate, and persuade audiences, whether you’re giving them in a conference room, boardroom, or classroom.

The post Presentation Skills 101: Fundamental Principles for Success appeared first on Granite Grok.

Attorney Brian D. Kenyon of the Marshall Law Office in East Kingston, NH, has been suspended by the NH Supreme Court pending final resolution by the NH Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).

The suspension stems from allegations by the NH Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) that Kenyon, who was admitted to the NH Bar in 1978, violated a number of professional conduct rules in 2022 and 2023. The most significant allegation accuses Kenyon of failure to supervise a Paralegal at the law firm. Kenyon, who is no stranger to ethics violations, was reprimanded in 2016 for violating “duties owed to a client,” in which the ADO concluded that “Mr. Kenyon’s mental state was negligent with respect to his client.”

According to recent case documents obtained at the NH Law Library and the NH Supreme Court, the ADO alleges a number of ethics violations against Kenyon. The most significant of which is that Kenyon allegedly failed to supervise paralegal Keri J. Marshall who was a former attorney and is the current and longtime owner of the Marshall Law office. Marshall, who was admitted to the NH bar in 1987, once specialized in family law. She resigned from the NH bar while under investigation by the ADO in 2022. The specific reasoning for the ADO’s investigation of Marshall has not been disclosed.

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

Marshall is no stranger to ethics violations herself. According to ADO records, she was censured in 2012 for a number of ethics violations, including directing an office employee to file an affidavit testifying that she had notified Daniel Shepard (an adverse party) of an “Assented to Motion to Continue” (agreement on rescheduling). Shepard, who was representing himself Pro Se against his ex-wife and her then-council Marshall, successfully proved that he was never notified of the Assented to Motion to Continue. Marshall was subsequently censured by the ADO with aggravating factors, including failure to fully cooperate with the ADO and failure to take responsibility for her misconduct. For her actions, Marshall received a public censure with sanctions. Marshall was permitted to continue practicing law without any suspension.

The recent allegations against Kenyon stem from two separate independent complaints by Timothy Bickford and Michael Kimball. Bickford’s complaint alleges that Kenyon, who represented his ex-wife in a recent family court matter, failed to supervise Marshall and that she, as a paralegal, was falsely representing herself as an active attorney at the Marshall Law firm. Kimball’s complaint alleges that he met alone with Marshall (a paralegal – nonattorney) at her law office in 2023, and he received legal advice from her and was subsequently billed for the meeting. He later learned that Marshall was not a licensed attorney. Kenyon, the only attorney at the firm, is responsible for the behavior of all staff members, including paralegals. These complaints to the ADO, by both Bickford and Kimball, have resulted in new accusations against Kenyon by the ADO where both Kenyon and Marshall appear to have dug themselves into a deep hole.

The ADO allegations against Kenyon and Marshall should not come as a surprise to many residing in the seacoast area. The Marshall Law office has a notorious reputation for ruthless and ignoble tactics in the realm of the family court. Online reviews on lawyers.com speak for themselves. Some of the reviews state: “She is the most dishonest person on the planet,” “She lies and encourages her clients to lie,” and “Honestly the most dishonest attorney in the state. Quick to lie and without a stitch of morals. A trust piece of subhuman garbage”, “She drags out a divorce as long as possible to make it as expensive as possible for her clients. She is always late for hearings, which costs everyone more money. She will keep the fight going as long as she possibly can, and if children are involved, she will lie”.

Presently, there are no licensed attorneys working at the Marshall Law Firm. However, the public is generally unaware of this. The Marshall Law sign still hangs in front of the law office at 47 Depot Road in East Kingston.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series when I discuss the details of the ADO allegations against Kenyon and Marshall and report on developments in ADO’s case.

 

The views and opinions expressed by contributors are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion or position of Grok Media, GraniteGrok.com, its authors, advertisers, donors, or sponsors.

The post Trouble Brewing again at the Marshall Law Firm in East Kingston appeared first on Granite Grok.

A January 14th poll on the Iowa caucus had Trump in the lead with 55% of the vote. Haley was 21, DeSantis at 15, Ramaswamy at 5, Christie (dropped out), and Hutchinson at 2%. Iowans caucused last night and declared their choice for the Republican Nominee.

Trump won with 51% of the vote, DeSantis managed to secure second with 21%, Haley coming in third at 19%. Vivek, failing to do better than 4th place, announced his withdrawal from the race after only attracting 8% of the vote.

Ramaswamy endorsed Trump on his way out of the race Monday night, and the two were already closely ideologically aligned. According to an average of recent polls that asked Republican primary voters their second choice for president, a plurality — 42 percent — of Ramaswamy supporters nationwide said Trump.

It was a similar story in New Hampshire, where an average of 39 percent of Ramaswamy voters said Trump was their second choice.

Ramaswamy has also endorsed Trump.

That might make a difference in New Hampshire, where St Anselm’s latest poll (1/12/24) has Trump at 45, Haley at 31, Christie at 9, DeSantis at 6, and Ramaswamy at 6. There is always some debate about these polls, but if this one is accurate, Haley could scoop up Christie’s voters and come up with five theoretical points, but Trump could likewise get Vivek’s.

Given the influence of independents in the New Hampshire primary – who can choose to vote on either party ballot – the thinking is that this is why Haley is doing so well or will. The Independents helped to keep Sununu in office for four terms, and he is a ruling-class RINO machine politician like Haley. It is not a stretch to suggest she might win New Hampshire, given the collapse of DeSantis and the departure of every other anyone-but-Trump candidate.

It is a three-person race on paper, but after Iowa, it might only be two. Desantis did not meet expectations, not even close, and  Haley appears likely to crush DeSantis in New Hampshire, not that this drama matters much to Trump. The most recent national polls have Trump/Haley at 69/12, a fifty-seven-point lead for the former president. While a close shave in the Granite State might help Haley attract more anyone but Trump fence-sitters (and that is a thing), she has a very big hill to climb but plenty of establishment money to attempt it.

Still, Mr. Trump’s lock on the nomination continues to be his to lose.

Tune In

We haven’t advertised this much yet, but the ‘Grok and The 603 Alliance will be on Radio Row in Manchester in the lead-up to New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Primary. We’ve got local and national guests lined up (in-person and phone interviews), and despite some last-minute wrangling, we appear to be ready to roll, assuming the equipment or the folks running it (me, for example) don’t run into trouble.

At present, we intend to stream to the ‘Grok Twitter feed as Musk’s X has made it about as easy as you can get. Facebook, too, I suspect – also relatively easy to set up. I’ll announce the final digital destinations as soon as I know they are working, which might be Sunday morning before we start. The interviews and commentary will commence on January 21st from 9 am to 5 pm and continue again on Monday and Tuesday, same bat time, same bat channel.

If you happen to be in the DoubleTree in Manchester, come find us!

The post Trump Wins Iowa Caucus, DeSantis Second, Haley Third – Ramaswamy Drops Out appeared first on Granite Grok.

A few nights ago, a violent pro-Hamas mob attempted to storm the Whitehouse. But they are not insurrectionists, and let me explain why. The United States of America is now the Apartheid State of America. There are different rules.

If you belong to the Left … pro-Hamas, BLM, Antifa … you get to storm the Whitehouse, and it is a mostly peaceful protest, and you aren’t charged with any crimes. Can’t upset the voting blocs the Left counts on.

But if you do not belong to the Left, you are presumptively an insurrectionist. And you face years of jail time for peacefully walking through the Capitol after the Capitol Police opened the doors to you and let you in.

To cut to the chase, America is an apartheid state based on where you rate on the woke scale. The more woke you are, the more rights and privileges you get. And vice versa.

JUST IN: Pro-Palestine protesters try to breach the security fence outside of the White House, forcing DC police to hold the fence.

If they were wearing red MAGA hats this would be all over the news.

According to @Julio_Rosas11, the fence was attacked so badly that Secret… pic.twitter.com/1vwVxE7WEe

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 14, 2024

Remember the media playing this clip of the “insurrection”?

No?

That’s b/c it was Antifa and BLM storming the White House and injuring 50+ Secret Service agents

When will the FBI arrest these “domestic terrorists”?pic.twitter.com/E6spEmzkjs

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) January 31, 2023

 

The post Don’t You Dare Call Them Isurrectionists appeared first on Granite Grok.

Digital marketing and digital agency are often used interchangeably in the digital landscape, but they differ significantly when seeking professional services in the digital space.

A digital marketing company or agency gives smart and effective marketing help. This includes boosting online search results, social media campaigns, content making for websites, email advertising, designing web pages look good and branding. It also helps with computer support. They aid companies in the online world to reach their targets, but knowing their special skills and range is very important.

In this blog, we will explore the difference between a digital marketing company and a digital agency. This way you can know which one is better for your needs.

What is Digital Marketing?

Digital marketing means the ways and methods used to show off goods or services on the internet. It includes many things such as SEO or search engine optimization, social media marketing, content marketing and email marketing. The purpose of digital marketing is to make your brand known, get people to visit your website, create chances for sales and finally turn those chances into paying customers.

What is a Digital Agency?

A digital agency is a type of business that gives different online marketing services to other companies. These services can involve making and developing websites, marketing on search engines (SEM), controlling social media. It also includes creating content and sending emails. And more too. Basically, a digital agency is like an outside marketing team for businesses. They take care of everything related to a company’s online image.

The Real Difference

In the always changing world of technology and business, it’s really important to know the difference between digital marketing and a digital agency. Although they might look alike, they have different jobs and purposes in the world of online business plans.

Definition and Scope

Digital marketing is about advertising products or services using online tools like websites, social media sites and search engines. It also includes email marketing and mobile apps. It’s about making and using ads, improving your internet presence, and looking at what customers do.

A digital firm is a business that provides various digital services to customers. This can cover things like online ads, making websites, designing pictures, creating content for people to read or see. It also includes how well a website comes up in search results and managing social media pages too. A digital agency offers full support for companies to set up and improve their online presence.

Focus and Expertise

Digital marketing mainly aims to get people aware of a brand, create leads and boost sales using different ways on the internet. Digital marketers are experts in using digital ways and tools to connect with their target people. They make interesting content and measure how good their campaigns are.

A digital agency, by comparison, gives services that go beyond digital marketing. They know a lot about different things like making websites, designing pictures and SEO. Digital companies have different teams with experts in various areas who work together to give full digital answers.

Client Engagement

Digital marketing and a digital agency might seem the same, but there’s an important difference when it comes to interacting with clients. Digital marketing is about the methods and actions used to advertise a brand or product on the internet. It typically includes tasks like using social media, improving search engine results, and sending emails.

But, a digital agency is a kind of business that gives many types of digital services to customers like marketing on the internet. But, the real change comes with how much clients get involved. A digital agency not only does digital marketing campaigns, but also gives a total approach by helping clients all the time. It gives advice and planning services too. This higher level of client involvement makes a digital agency different from just a single digital marketing service.

Collaboration vs. Outsourcing

Digital marketing and digital agencies may seem similar, but there is a real difference between the two. One key distinction is the approach to collaboration versus outsourcing. In digital marketing, businesses typically collaborate with a team or agency to develop and execute their marketing strategies. This involves close communication and involvement in the decision-making process.

On the other hand, digital agencies often provide a more outsourced service, where businesses hand over their marketing efforts entirely to the agency, allowing them to handle everything from strategy to implementation.

Cost and Scalability

When looking at digital marketing and a digital agency, one big difference is cost and how easily they can grow. Digital marketing means the ways and methods used to sell products or services on the internet, which can be done by yourself or given to a digital team. When it comes to price, online marketing lets firms have more power over their money. This is because they can pick and decide how much funds they want to give just for particular ways of advertising.

Digital companies offer access to a diverse group of experts, allowing businesses to adapt their marketing plans to their goals and budget. Digital marketing offers more flexibility, while digital agencies can handle complex campaigns due to their knowledge and tools. The choice between digital marketing or a digital agency ultimately depends on the business’s specific needs and resources.

In the end, even though digital marketing and digital agencies might look alike, there are some important differences between them. Digital marketing is about the ways we use online to tell people about products or services. A digital agency is a business that helps others with their internet advertising efforts.

Digital marketing is a part of the work done by a digital firm. This also includes making websites, managing social media, helping with search engine rankings and more. So, it’s important to know these differences when thinking about how best to use digital tools for business growth.

The post Digital Marketing Vs. Digital Agency : The Real Difference appeared first on Granite Grok.

This week, the House started public hearings on the new bills. My committee first met to review the performance audit of mental health professional licensing.

There were no surprises; the auditors found conflicting requirements, various laws not enforced, and leisurely activity by the licensing boards. Most of the statutory changes suggested have been submitted already, so this audit was mostly a map of things to be aware of as we proceeded this year.

Then we heard seven pension bills, all of which were sent to subcommittee. HB 1647 was a recommendation from the retirement commission I chaired this fall, restoring the pension multiplier to 2.5 (from a staggered 2.0 to 2.4 currently) for Group II (police, fire, corrections) employees not vested in 2011. It improves the pensions for all GII employees, including new hires. HB 1653, adding overtime back into earnable compensation for only the employed but not vested group, and HB 1673, changing the calculation of final compensation for that group, both had moderate costs that compounded the effects of other changes, so we need to be careful about increasing costs.

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

HB 1299 added the fire instructors at the community college to GII if they had at least ten years of service before becoming educators in an attempt to recruit New Hampshire professionals. Teaching is a Group I activity, and going to GI after a career in GII is generally disadvantageous for the person, both because there are some special benefits that are only available if one retires directly from a GII position and because the federal government penalizes Social Security if there is a GII pension (GII does not pay into, nor earn, Social Security benefits.) The committee was skeptical mostly because there are only two instructors in this program, and we hate making exceptions for only a few people.

HB 1211 would increase the maximum hours worked by a retiree for ten years to allow localities to hire them to cover openings. Since very few retirees work anything close to the maximum number of hours, I’m not optimistic we’ll recommend this bill.

HB 1421 requires the retirement system to hire two investment consultants rather than one and only renew the contract of the one with the better results. It’s an interesting idea and might improve the investment results, but the bill puts this competition in the wrong statute.

Finally, HB 1307 grants a $500 stipend to disability retirees who didn’t get last year’s bonus because it was restricted to those who retired after at least 20 years of service. Disability retirees don’t choose to retire early.

The committee will be holding hearings at least two days a week for a while since we have 66 new bills assigned.

The post Public Hearing’s Are Upon Us appeared first on Granite Grok.

Last week, yet another election-process challenge was argued in court: this time, federal U.S. District for New Hampshire. At issue was the sleight-of-hand unauthorized extension of primary voter dates to change party – part of a schema of Trump-haters to empower non-GOP outsiders to vote in the state GOP primary election, then to switch back to their own ‘other party’ affiliation to vote in the general election.

Crafty? Slick? This Machiavellian maneuver by high-level authorities (both government and political party leaders) was yet another scheme to keep the leading contender for U.S. President off the state general election ballot. It has a name – this disruptive practice is called a ‘tactical voting’ practice.

There have been 64 election challenges across the nation since the 2020 election results were announced, each filed by a diverse set of interested parties challenging every kind of conceivable plot and project to illegally gather, create, invent, destroy, and manipulate computer data, voter rolls, and paper ballots in ways that alter true vote outcomes. It occurs at polling offices, virtual data repositories, print shops, using ballot machines, and now by an SOS email to every precinct officer. Whether these ideas of stolen and altered election results are illusory and ill-thought or whether there is merit and true evidentiary substance to these claims is yet to be seen because of manipulation of the third branch to avoid looking and hearing these 64 case challenges.

Standing to Sue is a legal concept that bars the doors to the courthouse to those who have nothing at risk, no losses (actual or potential), and therefore, people who file a claim are deemed to be bringing spurious cases – alleged to be unfit litigants and attorneys without character, fact, or valid right to sue for relief under the law.

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

Last week saw a multitude of New Hampshire supporters show up for a court hearing where state GOP Party Committee member (and past gubernatorial challenger) Karen Testerman appeared–to explain to the judge why she should be allowed to advance her lawsuit to discovery and trial stages – a lawsuit alleging state officials quietly and irreparably altered the GOP primary voting process –causing irreparable harm if not corrected using legal process.

Testerman’s case is #65, although it is hard to keep track.

The NH SOS and GOP chairman challenged Testerman’s right to sue them (she sued along with two other GOP citizen co-parties) over their manipulations of law using the authority of office that quietly (some would say secretly) was planned to alter and corrupt the State GOP primary election outcome.

The primary election is less than two weeks away. If the government officials’ challenge to Testerman’s fundamental right to bring a law case against them is not decided, then de facto, the altered primary process will proceed with thousands of registered Democrats and Independents (now temporarily casting GOP primary votes) deciding if Donald Trump will be listed on the general election ballot this fall.

Americans have been increasingly disappointed for several decades over the collapse of the American Dream in areas of work, economic freedom, and individual reward for their hard work, discipline, risk, and product quality. The crashing American dream also includes widespread loss of faith in the political systems and in many government actors—elected and appointed bureaucrats with power acting against duty and morality–while unfettered courts that can – do or will not allow legal actions by citizens to be heard to correct administrative injuries, errors, and outright abuses of government authority and power.

Here, those who have access to top-level authority over the primary election processes are again being challenged for their failure to follow the rule of law by altering the process and/or by acting unethically to corrupt the election outcome. The question is, are they above review? Above the law? Or is there oversight of the highest offices of state political election power?

The U.S. Supreme Court this summer ruled on two cases that States may not duck or avoid court cases challenging state rights, including voting law. These are Marbury v. Madison caliber cases – finding a basic duty in court judges to allow 2nd Amendment cases (landmark decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) & NY State Pistol Club v. Bruen (2002), which firmly set the standard of review for judicial review of American fundamental rights (overruling the disingenuous universal pre-2023 court trick of manipulating to shift the state’s burden of proof over to complaining citizens.) This burden-shifting manipulation (of the state burden onto the backs of citizens). This means a citizen’s right to access to court to right a fundamental wrong. The Right-to-Sue-in-court had been shifted into oblivion by standardized modern court practice. Moore v. Harper (2023) also established rules on judicial review (in a redistricting challenge involving independent redistricting theory). Courts are not free to legislate from the bench or act in an inappropriate manner, wrote the U.S. Supremes, so does the present NH process of barring access to justice –by denying a party voter the right to sue for relief meet this new U.S. standard? Does it mean courts can avoid hearing these cases at all, much less to rule in a timely manner? And with the election less than two weeks away?

[See another recent NH Supreme Court case argument on YouTube at Daniel_Richard.com.] 

A voting system is spelled out in the State Constitution with the required process; so the state administrator’s exploitation of his SOS power of office to quietly manipulate to alter what is a detailed Constitutional mandate into something else in practice– is a boldfaced manipulation of official power.

After the Civil War, this country saw an avalanche of exploitation, manipulation, and corruption in office, writes author William Caldwell in his book Cynicism and the Evolution of the American Dream (highly recommended reading). Here, cynicism extends not only to state election officers but to their overseer – the court judiciary/system. Who else can hold them accountable? What other timely recourse is available for oversight of bad government actors under American law?

In 64 election-challenge-cases, judges declined to hear all cases but one. 

In many, the political, occupational, and financial retaliation against attorneys who filed the cases and challenged the government’s political narrative–was beyond harsh. It was designed to ruin and destroy the professional and private lives of those who acted in good faith for Americans who challenged overarching national narratives that the last election was fair and honest. The widespread perception across ‘common’ America is the last election was manipulated and stolen. The power of the state is punishing harshly and unfairly those who DARE to ask for the American open trial process for public exposure of underlying facts, discovery, and for a publicly-monitored trial decision on the fairness and ethics of those election practices. Are they American values? Or are they manipulated by political corruption? Don’t we deserve to hear and decide individually—by public trial process–where facts and evidence are openly presented?

If the lawsuit allegations are political lies, are underlying facts present, waiting to be discovered, processed, and presented in court at trial? The greatest risk of this process is truth to power.

Is truth being suppressed systematically, using legal tools designed to avoid the so-called ‘frivolous lawsuits’ – alleged to be filed in court by mentally incapacitated and unfit lawyers? Those are hard-ball political and bar corporation tactics now routinely being used to systematically suppress (and oppress) American critics, cynics, thinkers, open challengers, and, yes, attorney whistleblowers.

Who but? The moral implications of fitness to sue being herded through the narrow padlocks of preliminary court hearings is one of semantics – whether or not a citizen lacks standing to sue– is an affront to democracy, Americans, and the ideals we espouse for fair elections.  Government actors (as the above cases indicate) have no such pre-requirement to sue us, so the double standard – that citizens have a fundamental right to sue but cannot until they jump through court procedural hoops ad nauseam – is being used nationally by those in power to suppress the fundamental rights of American citizens to question politically altered traditional voting processes.

The lack of transparency and the exponential harmful impact of cutting-edge data processing technology means the capacity to alter electronic processing exists without accountability. Other more mundane alterations of voting dates, registration, verification, even mule-vote processing and other signature or verification anomalies all mean there exist invisible vote-changes and that Americans now are told to address by trusting those in power.

American skepticism is a national trait – from early pioneers, farmers, and cowboys to moon explorers, skepticism kept our ancestors alive in body and spirit – and thriving when bureaucracies and politicians were wrong and failed. Whether flaws in the recent voting changes are intentional or in error, skepticism is still a healthy American process.

The inability to challenge in court and obtain a public trial, to view and challenge the unseen manipulations of data and law, to expose manipulated voting processes, means the high technology voter processes (corrupted by unaccountable political actors) can exist. These processes are designed to invent, harvest, and file absentee ballots, fraudulently manufacture and/or falsify ballots and voter rolls, and other irregularities at the polls. These crimes arguably fall into the same category as this underhanded manipulation of the party primary registration calendar.

All are designed and enacted to alter a fundamental national tradition of voting—and appear to be accompanied by the certainty that courts everywhere will not open the doors (floodgates?) to citizen doubts about the authenticity of voter registration, certification, and the election processes. That’s the preliminary bar of unequal standing to sue protocol. It leaves citizens with no recourse at law.

Why should a state administrator be immune from these irregularities, manipulations, and violations at law? Where does this immunity come from? From the invisible protection of the overseeing branch – judges who slam shut the door to the courthouse?

This is a cynical age. National political strategists and operators planted practices and campaigns leading to this now widespread cynicism of voters. Testerman’s lawsuit is a ray of hope that American rights still exist; and that election law overseers will recognize the basic duty to stop unequally barring access to the courthouse.

Caroline Douglas, J.D. is a former NH attorney, former co-author of the New Hampshire State Law Treatise on Family Law, and author of several law treatises, including The Dark Side, a law treatise on judging (with memoir). She is a national whistleblower and can be reached at nssri@pm.me

Note: as this op-ed opinion was being sent out for publication, a notice of the court’s decision barring the Testerman claim from the court was received – denied by the judge who raised the issue of standing. This proactive protection of a state court actor was based on an alleged lack of standing—by an oral ‘motion’ initiated by the judge. Slam the door shut. Firmly. Yet again.

The post Night Cap: Who Has Standing to Sue If Not US? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Donald Trump winning the Iowa Caucus is not a surprise – well, maybe to a few DeSantis and Haley staffers on Twitter – but that doesn’t mean no surprises are coming out of Iowa.

Trump’s winning was not in doubt. What was who came in second, and how close did they land to the winner?

AP, no fan of The Donald, doesn’t know that answer, but they called it for him at 8:30.

Donald Trump won the Iowa caucuses on Monday, seizing a crucial victory that reinforces the former president’s grip on his party at the outset of the GOP’s 2024 nomination fight even as he faces extraordinary legal challenges that could complicate his bid to return to the White House.

The magnitude of Trump’s success is still coming into focus and it was not immediately clear who would emerge as the second-place finisher, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Caucus voters endured life-threatening cold and dangerous driving conditions to participate in meetings that unfolded in hundreds of schools, churches and community centers across the state.

The winter weather was a test fidelity, which likely played a factor, but reliable primary and caucus voters tend to turn up no matter what. The difference will be who showed up in addition to that to cast a vote for their favorite.

The Trump Campaign did not wait to celebrate:

“The people of Iowa sent a clear message tonight: Donald Trump will be the next Republican nominee for President. It’s now time to make him the next President of the United States.

Early results had Trump with 75% of the vote. A more sober average brings that down closer to 60%. The actual total will take a while longer to work out, but the Dems aren’t running it (their “caucus” doesn’t even count), so we should know well before morning those final results.

We’ll have an update at 8 am, if you want to sleep in.

 

HT | Red State

The post AP: Donald Trump is the Projected Winner of the Iowa Caucus appeared first on Granite Grok.