A reader alerted me to this bit of news—Bud Barn, a purveyor of ‘Premium Cannabis Products Made (and taxed) in Vermont,’ is advertising on Keene, NH, radio. Even if they are trying to capture the ears of Vermonters who work in Western New Hampshire, to quote a different local, weed ain’t legal here.

Related: Legal Weed in California Leads to More Marijuana Enforcement (not less).

New Hampshire has a medical marijuana program. Sentences for possession have been reduced. But it is still illegal, and you can’t cross the border with it – that’s a federal crime.

From CFAH.org

• In general, the use, possession, and sale of marijuana and its derivatives are illegal in New Hampshire, and it is the only state in New England where this applies.
• Marijuana is legally available to people with certain medical conditions, and there are limits to the amount that qualified patients may obtain.
• Recreational marijuana is still illegal in New Hampshire, although it was decriminalized in 2017.
• The laws also apply to cannabis-related products such as edibles, tinctures, and topical ointments, and to the sale or possession of drug-related paraphernalia.

So what gives with the marijuana radio? I’ve no clue and have yet to ask anyone who might know except you folks. You are no less informed or connected, so consider it a homework assignment. How can a Keene radio station sell airtime for a product from a neighboring state (that cannot legally travel across state lines?) and is illegal in this state?

I’m not passing judgment on whether they should be able to advertise in NH or not, but the reader had some intriguing observations.

“How many kids and teenagers are hearing this blasted on our radio every 15 minutes?”

I don’t believe our radio waves should be polluted by forcing us to be subjected to the promotion of “Recreating as you choose” using a product that is currently illegal in NH- in a state dealing with a drug crisis.

Afterall, there are clear reasons it’s still illegal here- so why are allowing the use of an illegal drug product to be advertised here?

Legalization here is increasingly likely if someone can convince the NH State Senate how the state may best profit, thus my continued objection (a recent bill would have created state-run dispensaries). But I am otherwise indifferent to what adults do in their spare time, tempered by certain realities that make legalized drug use a bad idea (here and here for examples).

There are numerous potential mental health issues from long-term or excessive use. And I have always had serious concerns about state management of the commodity as a revenue source, more recently explored here. And, of course, the Fed’s ongoing prohibition on legal gun ownership and marijuana use, to which I sense they are a bit clingy despite recent trial balloons to the contrary.

But that’s all a side conversation. An out-of-state marijuana vendor is advertising on Keene radio. For all the reasons mentioned above, what’s the deal with that?

Update: “Because of federal prohibition, marketing channels overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are off limits for cannabis brands, including radio and television broadcast.”

Ruh-Roh, Raggy!

The post Weed is Still Illegal in New Hampshire so Why is Bud Barn in Vermont Advertising on Keene Radio [Update] appeared first on Granite Grok.

Dan, in his Surreply in his Election Law suit against Gov. Chris Sununu and other officials, elected and appointed, uses Bruen to buttress his argument.  Thus, it is worth reviewing to see the actual underpinnings to his case but from my uneducated eye (and Dan’s explanations), the reach of Bruen may well extend FAR beyond that of “keep and bear arms”.  Reformatted, emphasis mine:

OCTOBER TERM, 2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community…

…Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carrya handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.

<snip>

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

<snip>

Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because

“[t]he 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.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.

We then concluded:

“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.

Sounds like the Left’s constant whine that Constitutional Rights have limits just got shotgunned.  Or by cannon fire (which, contrary to President Asterisk Biden, are legal for one to own (see Letters of Marque, US Constitution). Not just the 2nd but ALL enumerated Rights.

And the part that Dan said to review concerning the applicability of Bruen to other Rights above and beyond the above:

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistentwith Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applyingthe Second Amendment is as follows:

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstratingthat it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.

C

This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554 U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. In that context, “[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Governmentbears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 816 (2000); see also Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 777 (1986). In some cases, that burden includes showing whether the expressive conduct falls outside of the category of protected speech. See Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U. S. 600, 620, n. 9 (2003). And to carry that burden, the government must generally point to historical evidence about the reach of the First Amendment’s protections.

<snip>

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation hastaught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regardingfirearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.

The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.

Or speak our minds.

I make no claim to be a lawyer and don’t play one here or elsewhere. However, ordinary citizens are not denied the ability to opine on those things that are important to our everyday lives. That includes legislation (although we may not be legislators) and court decisions (although we may not be jurists or judges). These things matter and matter a lot – the word “esoteric” should never be used by some, especially by the Left in their worship of “experts”, to close down debate simply because we are ordinary people. After all, they serve only given our consent – their Powers stem from our consent (even as it seems they have taken that premise to have free reign to rule instead of governing).

In talking with Dan, it seems logical that one can substitute “Second” for any other of an Individual’s Right under the Bill of Rights. It is the historical analysis, not just that it was applied to the Second Amendment in this case, that is of the most import.

The post Since Dan Richard Referenced SCOTUS Bruen Decision, Here’s the Important Bits (Abridged) appeared first on Granite Grok.

WASHINGTON, DC — In a 7-2 ruling that protects anti-government speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of a federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage” illegal aliens to remain in the country.

In United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court held that the law, which prohibits encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, must be interpreted as forbidding only the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain unlawful acts and not as prohibiting a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and FIRE had filed an amicus brief warning that laws that criminalize mere encouragement of civil disobedience could chill speech essential to advocating for political and social change. For example, speech encouraging civil disobedience was a powerful tool in movements for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and protesting government overreach in the face of COVID-19 lockdowns and policies.

“This statute laid the groundwork for the government to muzzle any nonviolent, political speech that challenges government injustice,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This is exactly the kind of law that would have rendered countless Americans as criminals, from Revolutionary War patriots to Martin Luther King Jr., for encouraging resistance and civil disobedience in the face of government tyranny.”

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a person is prohibited from encouraging or inducing a noncitizen to enter or remain in the United States when doing so would be in violation of the law. The law is a felony and carries a penalty of up to five years imprisonment. Helaman Hansen was charged with violating this statute, among others, and moved to dismiss this charge on grounds that the law is facially overbroad by penalizing protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. Hansen’s attorneys argued that the statute would punish the author of an op-ed criticizing the immigration system or a minister who welcomes undocumented people into the congregation and expresses the community’s love and support. The trial court rejected Hansen’s argument and found him guilty, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that the statutory provision is facially overbroad because it criminalizes speech such as encouraging an undocumented immigrant to take shelter during a natural disaster, advising an undocumented immigrant about available social services, telling a tourist that she is unlikely to face serious consequences if she overstays her visa, or providing certain legal advice to undocumented immigrants.

On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and indicated that the statute should be interpreted narrowly in such a way as to avoid any such constitutional violations. The Court noted that the statute could penalize acts of smuggling noncitizens, providing counterfeit immigration documents or fake social security numbers, or making fraudulent representations to take advantage of noncitizens for personal financial gain. While Rutherford and FIRE had argued that the Court should have gone further and struck down the statute for being viewpoint-discriminatory and chilling protected speech, the majority noted that nothing in its ruling prevents a future defendant from challenging the statute as being unconstitutional as applied to him in violation of the First Amendment.

Erin Glenn Busby, Lisa R. Eskow, and Michael F. Sturley with the University of Texas School of Law’s Supreme Court Clinic advanced the arguments in the amicus brief.

HT | Rutherford Institute

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Editors Note: While we would not encourage illegals to “stay in the country,” protecting that speech also protects all anti-government speech” including suggesting the illegals be returned home (which these days are more likely to be considered “anti-government” than its opposite).

The post Supreme Court Protects Anti-Government Speech … appeared first on Granite Grok.

Several readers have forwarded a story about a Canadian father jailed and fined for misgendering his daughter in public. But he wasn’t jailed for that, not exactly. He was fined and imprisoned for ignoring a gag order that prohibited him from publicly objecting to the forced hormone therapy to which he did not consent.

Hoogland — who was featured anonymously in the Daily Wire documentary “What is a Woman?” — took legal action after a Canadian children’s hospital in 2018 told him that his daughter, who was then just 13 years old, was going to be injected with testosterone, despite Hoogland refusing to give his consent. In British Columbia, the Infants Act permits minors to consent to their own trans treatments if doctors think it’s in their best interests; parents’ consent is irrelevant.

America is already on the track. Many states, even my own (New Hampshire), have districts re-gendering kids at school without parental knowledge or consent. States like California are trying to toss kids into the genderizer without consent but with full knowledge, and if parents object, it starts looking like Canada.

The US DoJ and local jurisdictions have not been shy about intimidating parents who object to adult material in grade schools or teaching their children they are systemic racists. Arrests at school boards over various issues have increased as local tyrants work to silence parents and taxpayers alike.

Robert Hoogland was fined and jailed for six months, not for being disruptive or (allegedly) obstructing a meeting. Not even for objecting to the hospital injecting his 13-year-old daughter with hormone treatments (over which he’d filed a lawsuit). It was for refusing to be gagged and publicly speaking about his objections.

The court said that the girl could move forward with the testosterone and said Hoogland was barred from publicly “misgendering” his daughter, meaning he couldn’t refer to his own daughter as his daughter. Moreover, Canadian media was banned from publishing Hoogland’s name in any coverage via a publication ban. Hoogland told The Daily Wire such bans allow people to hide what they’re doing to children, despite these same people claiming trans treatments are helpful, good, and even lifesaving.

Insidious.

Canada is using its monopoly on ” health care” to sanction chemical experimentation on children that have permanent “side effects” (many of them dangerous to the life and well-being of the child). A deliberate government act paid for and defended with taxpayers’ dollars on which neither the press nor the people may publicly comment, protest, or seek redress.

Hoogland was punished for daring to question the government-run medical-industrial complex, which has to hit home here in America, where the FBI worked inside social media companies to suppress or censor Americans who questioned COVID response policy.

Many businesses and states fired employees because they’d lose government funding if detractors were freely allowed to dissent. From jabbing children to elderly parents or spouses, “Health Care” may have become one of this decade’s most significant threats to liberty.

Hoogland is happy to be out. To have taken the risk and, after only serving two months, been released. That’s not a win, but he should feel privileged to have not been diagnosed as mentally incompetent and recommended for medically assisted suicide.

The post What Losing Free Speech Looks Like appeared first on Granite Grok.

September 19th is a critical special election for the seat that will determine the balance in the New Hampshire House.

Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.

This past year with the New Hampshire House was essentially tied between both major parties, and we have seen an effective stalemate when it comes to policy decisions. This virtual tie has led to numerous good bills dying in the House. In fact, this past year, 57 of the 199 roll call votes were decided by less than 5 people sitting in the chamber, so every vote counts!

This is where you can help! The former Rep. from Northwood and Nottingham has resigned, and there is a special election to fill his seat. This former rep only showed up once, and therefore, this is our one opportunity to pick up a seat with a candidate who cares about protecting medical freedom, education freedom, and parental rights.

RebuildNH wants to let the voters in Northwood and Nottingham know about this special election: First, please contact your friends and family in Northwood and Nottingham and encourage them to vote in the special election September 19th.

We reached out to both candidates and the other candidate refused to fill out survey which could be an indicator that they are hostile to our issues.

Jim Guzofski, a former selectman and school board member, turned in an almost perfect survey and cares about the rights we work to protect.

Additionally, we have set a fundraising goal of $2,500 so we can mail some postcards into the district talking about Jim Guzofski. Please consider contributing.
Donate Here

Towards Liberty,

Melissa Blasek
Executive Director, RebuildNH

The post State House Special Election Alert appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Black, Brown, and Red communities have been programmed for generations to support the Democrat Party. They have been gaslighted to believe that Democrats have their backs and are the Party to protect and serve the little guy. They listen to their President talk about racism and the poison of White Supremacy.

They talk about the white threats on people of color as the biggest threat to Democracy. There is no proof of White Supremacy or systemic racism in America. People like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Al Sharpton have made careers on the backs of minorities, and the only way their cash flow continues is to stir the ashes to keep the flames of racism burning. They are using the ghost of slavery to keep people of color enslaved in the Democrat mantra. People of color are seeing through the lies and recognize they have been giving away their votes to the Mighty D and getting nothing in return. People of color are realizing they are more Conservative than they knew. They love God, the Nuclear Family, and the Country, and these are not the concerns of Democrats. Democrats have abandoned these people and all people in the middle class.

Look at the inner cities and the rampant crime and deplorable housing conditions. These cities have been abandoned, and as the Left calls to defund the Police, they become increasingly more dangerous.

Schools are failing all Americans, but specifically children of color. The falling grades are crucial, but so is the constant message of racism, oppression, and lack of opportunities for students of color. Absenteeism and dropout rates are skyrocketing for minorities. The future looks bleak without an education, making gangs’ attraction stronger.

The influx of millions of illegals will pressure low-skill/paying jobs, hurting minorities disproportionately. This labor pool will keep wages down, making Biden inflation more painful. There is not much in the Democrat platform that will retain the minority vote, which is indicative in the latest polls. Trump attracted 8% of the minority vote, but the latest polls show a rise to over 20%. This is huge for Democrats who feel they never had to work hard for this vote. Not so, any longer. The Democrats have taken this voting block for granted and will now pay the price.

Minorities, especially the Black voters, have awakened. They have heard enough of racism and want a fair shake. They see this from the Republicans. They do not want to hear about Equity and want an equal opportunity. They want to secure the borders and end this scourge of illegal immigrants moving into every city and absorbing much of the resources normally used for the low and middle-class.

Ironically, they see the head of the Democrat Party is an 80-year-old white man. They see the diversity of the Republican Party, which not only has a plan for the country and the cities but better reflects the look of today’s America.

Right now, it is talk, but in 2024, these folks will take their voices to the ballot box, and if the polls are accurate, the Democrats will be disappointed with the results. They should not be disappointed as they are getting what they deserve. We Conservatives welcome these minority groups and ask them what took them so long to cross over.

The post Minorities Finally Seeing The Light appeared first on Granite Grok.

Pediatricians who aren’t on board with pronouns, puberty blockers, and hormones are guilty of “transphobia” and need help, according to Dartmouth Health staff. They suggest pediatricians reflect on their “implicit bias” and that they “do some personal work in understanding how biases negatively affect the care they provide.”

In their American Academy of Pediatrics article, endocrinologist Frances Lim-Liberty and Jessica Smith, nurse practitioner and program coordinator for the Dartmouth Health Pediatric and Adolescent Transgender program, claim that pediatricians who “lack knowledge” may default to the “watch and wait” approach to see whether children will outgrow their confusion without affirmation and medicalization. “This method is outdated and harmful, denying resources needed to explore gender identity.” Never mind that research consistently shows that about 80% of children will outgrow their gender dysphoria if their identities aren’t affirmed.

They try to coerce physicians with The Trevor Project’s trans-or-die myth. “When youth are not affirmed, there is a significant increase in depression, anxiety, risky behaviors, and suicide.”

Lim-Liberty and Smith seem to be ignorant of developments in European nations, where national health services and medical associations have restricted access to puberty blockers or issued stark warnings.  They make no mention of the July 14 letter to the Wall Street Journal, “The Evidence of Gender Transition for Youth,” in which 21 clinicians and researchers from nine countries, including Finland’s leading expert, Riittakerttu Kaltiala, challenged Endocrine Society President Stephen Hammes’ claim that gender-affirming care improves well-being and reduces suicide.

Related: Experts: Child Transing Doesn’t Reduce Suicide

These international experts emphasized that “There is no reliable evidence to suggest that hormonal transition is an effective suicide prevention measure.” They implore US medical societies “to align their recommendations with the best evidence, rather than exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the risks.” These risks “are significant and include sterility, lifelong dependence on medication, and the anguish of regret.”

Anyone who’s set foot in a high school knows that transgenderism is a craze. Physician and researcher Lisa Littman hypothesized that transgenderism spread among teens as a social contagion. She coined the phrase Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) to describe girls who suddenly identified after being influenced by peers and social media stars.

But Lim-Liberty and Smith dismiss ROGD in language better suited to an advocacy group’s newsletter than a medical journal: “fictitious phenomenon,” “distinctly biased,” “anti-trans agenda,” “talking points,” “insidiously undermine.” They seem unaware that concerns  about ROGD led to the closure of Tavistock in England, the world’s largest children’s gender clinic, as documented in BBC Journalist Hannah Barnes’ book “Time to Think.”  In 10 years the number of girls seeking sex-trait modification at that clinic had increased by a mind-boggling  5,337%.

The Dartmouth staff’s article serves as a warning about how deeply Dartmouth Health is invested in an ideology that teaches that boys and girls are born with gender identities, and if these identities don’t match their bodies, they need to be turned into life-long medical patients.  

The post Dartmouth Health Staff Accuse Pediatricians Concerned About Sterilizing Children of Transphobia appeared first on Granite Grok.

Did you know that the four totally bogus indictments of President Trump are actually part of a Democrat plan to make him the GOP nominee? Of course, you did NOT. At least not until Mikey Graham over at NH-NeverTrump Journal told you. You see … GOP voters are dumb … really, really, really dumb … because they stopped marching in lockstep with their “leaders” in 2016. Or at least that’s Mikey’s take.

According to Mikey, ANY Republican, except Trump, would beat Biden. The Democrats, as long as the GOP voters do NOT choose Trump as the nominee, would stop ballot-harvesting. Zuckerberg and his ilk would stop their takeover of local election offices (to use them as Democrat GOTV operations). Big-Tech and the Regime-media would stop censoring and whitewashing all the Biden malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. The Deep State would stop interfering in elections.

If only you stupid, ignorant, really, really, really dumb voters would listen to Mikey and the other high-intellect GOP-“leaders” it would be morning in America again:

Here’s the irony: Democrats want Trump on the ballot. If there were a real chance Republicans would abandon him for an unindicted, non-Trump alternative, they would be the first to panic. There is only one Republican in the field that Joe Biden can beat. And based on the latest polls, Biden could even lose to Trump, too.

Here’s the REAL IRONY: If you believe a word off Mikey’s propaganda/conspiracy-theory masquerading as “analysis” then you are as really, really, really dumb as Mikey believes most GOP voters are.

The post NH-NeverTrump Journal … The Big Lie appeared first on Granite Grok.

The NH Supreme Court has taken my election law case for review. I just filed my Sur-reply to the State’s Brief. Oral arguments are next. The new SCOTUS decision from June 27, 2023, in Moore v. Harper (N.C. redistricting case) will now be tested in NH Highest Court. See attached copy of my Sur-reply why I believe this new case law will affect my case and ensure a positive outcome.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

No. 2023-0097

Daniel Richard

v.

Christopher Sununu, et al.

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY TO THE

DEFENDANTS BREIF

________________________________________________________________________

This is a case of first impression. This involves new national standards of review under recent U.S. Supreme Court case rulings regarding Constitutional standards applied to state legislative statutes including the June 2023, Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S.___ (decided June 27, 2023) [hereinafter, “Moore”] and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., et al. v. Bruen [hereinafter, “Bruen”] No. 20-843 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 2022) These rulings are applicable precedent and call for the reversal in this case.

1. Now comes, Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, submitting this Sur-reply in response to the state Appellees’ Answering Brief.
2. The Appellant claims that his right to remedy of certain voting right violations was summarily and improperly denied without hearing on the merits in this case where he seeks both remedy and redress for violations of his State and Federal voting rights, under the Constitution of New Hampshire [hereinafter “Const. N.H.”] and the Constitution of the United States. Article 1. Section 2 and the 17th Amendment, [hereinafter U.S. Const. & 17th Am.”].
3. The Attorney General has intentionally mis-represented constitutionally relevant facts presented by Appellant and ignored case law in its response to illegitimately support flawed arguments in opposition. Further, it filed no response regarding the new national controlling case law on this topic. This gaslighting of the public and the Appellant has created a deceptive factually and procedurally faux-excuse to overlook and ignore state officials’ illegitimate behaviors to enact material alteration of the constitutional voting process in a manner that is otherwise unable to be corrected. The harm is significant, irreparable, and ongoing.
4. For example, state absentee voting for the election years 2014, 2016, 2018, averaged 4%. But for the 2020 election, absentee voting under new election voting expansion practices–without oversight and improperly and inconsistently applied at a local level–improperly expanded non-constitutional absentee voting to 32%. 260,217 illegal absentee ballots (wrongly printed, distributed, and processed) were counted using ‘Vote Counting Devices’. This Expansion of an unconstitutional voting process in violation of the State Constitution represents a hidden political manipulation of process to avoid the safeguards of the State Constitution to wrongfully expand a create new unauthorized classes of unverified and ineligible voters not qualified by Constitutional standards.
5. Un-Constitutional Ballot Counting Devices Appellant states in his amended complaint on pg. 16, Items 58 and 59 that the moderator (and/or asst. moderator) failed to perform their mandatory duty, required by the Const. N.H. Part II, art. 32. This violation is a substantive due process violation as the moderator is constitutionally mandated (“shall”) to “sort,” verify signatures and affidavits, and count the absentee ballots – as well as other ballots now having been cast by a significant number of non-constitutional voters. Appellees sanctioned the unlawful discretionary use of Ballot Counting Devices and enhanced absentee balloting at the local level, perversely employing and distorting NH RSA 656:40, [which allows some towns, cities, or other political subdivisions of the State to use Ballot Counting Devices or not] in a political process/system which circumvents to violate the State Constitution, thereby depriving the Appellant of a fair, equal and uniform voting process throughout the State. These illegitimate state-actor practices are ongoing, and officials flaunt their abuse of power, while distorting the facts and moving to dismiss any review, and public trial of the issue. The “manner” in which this complex and multi-tiered “statutory-scheme” of improper vote-generating activity was instigated and enacted by various state officials acting under color of law – is unconstitutional and unlawful for the reasons re-stated herein.
6. These state practices are an infringement of Appellant’s Equal Protection Rights

(a). NH RSA 656:40 impermissibly infringes on the Appellant’s State equal protection rights (Const. N.H. Part I, art. 11.);

(b). NH RSA 656:40 also impermissibly infringes on the Appellant’s equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Const [hereinafter 14th Am;]

(c). Meanwhile, NH RSA 656:40 impermissibly shifts the state burden of proof for review onto the Appellant to prove that he is harmed by the Appellees’ statutory scheme to “amend” the constitutional duties of the moderator, (i.e., the manner in which votes were not verified yet were counted, and by the initiation and use of Ballot Counting Devices); (d). Appellees failed to show a historical analogue burdening the right of the Appellant to the equal application of the law in State and Federal elections;

(e). NH RSA 656:40 impermissibly infringes on the constitutional manner (Const. N.H. Part II, art. 32) where the moderator is required to “sort,” verify, and count the votes; this constitutional mandate was improperly and illegally altered by (removed) statute and practice. The inhabitants of this State are deprived of the exercise of their informed consent (Const. N.H. Part I, art. 1.) by the changes to amend the Const. N.H. secretly through legislative sophistry, in direct violation of the due process clause of the Const. N.H. Part II, art. 100. This thereby deprived the inhabitants of this State (which the Appellant is one of) of fundamental right to due process required by Const. N.H. Part II, art. 100 – which requires an open voter amendment process to alter any terms of the Const. N.H. This also violates the due process protection of the Const. N.H. Part I, art. 1, art. 15 and the due process clause of the 14th Am. to the U.S. Const. as recently decided in Moore. The legislative scheme is ongoing harm against lawful voters.

7.The Un-constitutional Expansion of Absentee Voting by State Officials (a) NH RSA Chapter 657 impermissibly infringes on the Const. N.H. Part I, art. 11 (The Qualified Absentee Voter Clause), and The Voter Qualification Clause of the U.S. Const. Article 1, Section 2 and the 17th Am;

(b) Further, NH RSA Chapter 657 has impermissibly shifted the burden of proof onto Appellant to prove that he was harmed by Appellees statutory scheme (progressively implemented) to impermissibly alter the constitutional language in order to surreptitiously expand absentee voting “rights” (thereby increasing illegitimate ballots cast and counted) without the consent of the voters and outside of the Constitutional safeguards and requirements provided in the Const. N.H.;

(c) NH RSA Chapter 657 violates the Const. N.H. (The Qualified Absentee Voter Clause), and The U.S. Voter Qualification Clause. The Const. N.H. Part I, art. 11, only authorizes those –

“…who are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or

who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person;”

(d) The Appellant was disenfranchised by this scheme and his vote diluted, as his State and federal voting rights, are violated by depriving the Appellant of the fair and equal election process established by each Constitution. The illegitimate government alteration of the constitutional election process by sophistry and sleight-of-hand alterations in various legislative (i.e., political) manipulations of the constitutional language – in order to artificially create more votes, without submitting their “scheme” to significantly alter the constitutional “manner” to create an exponential number of new-sub-par votes – is both an abrogation of the valid constitutional amendment process and overall integrity of the vote casting process reasonably expected by citizens, including Appellant. The unfair increase in constitutional voting by the additional tabulation of various non-constitutional absentee, legislative and political manipulations is largely hidden from common and public observation, and represents voter fraud of the worst kind, the dilution of proper votes cast using bogus unconstitutional votes new politically manufactured and processed as valid votes under color of law. It alters the entire landscape of bona fide voting process – by creating and allowing a calculated and artificial dilution of votes using expanded and unverified “absentee” and other processes that lacks constitutional validity. (e) The inhabitants of this State are deprived informed consent (Const. N.H.) by what is an illegal expansion of “new” votes that avoid the mandatory process required to amend the Const. N.H. This scheme deprives will continue to deprive the inhabitants of this State of the fundamental due process required and essential for voting under Const. N.H. Part II, art. 100. It also violates the due process protection of the Const. N.H. Part I, art. 1, art. 15, and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const., Moore.

As established by Moore, state officials may not duck and or ignore its responsibility to review the state’s impermissible voter-interference practices(In Moore that state practice to substantively alter election outcomes was gerrymandering.)In this case, officials similarly claim that ballot counting devices and absentee ballot processing are non-justiciable issues for this Appellant in this case. Here, absentee balloting is the new gerrymandering.

8. Legislature improperly passed an unconstitutional statute permitting so- called Resident Aliens the Right to Vote without a Constitutional Amendment

(a) “N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 11. By the article’s plain language, an individual must be an inhabitant of this State,” Fisher. (a). NH RSA 21:6, RSA 21:6 (a) impermissibly infringes on the Const. N.H. Part I, art. 11 (Voter Qualification Clause) and The Voter Qualification Clause of the U.S. Const. Article 1. Section 2. and the 17th Am;

(b) NH RSA 21:6 impermissibly shifts the burden of proof onto this Appellant for him to prove that he is harmed by this statutory scheme to amend the Constitutional definition of a qualified voter without following Constitutional Amendment requirements, which specifically require the consent of “the inhabitants” of N.H; (c). NH RSA 21:6 is a state statute that allows resident aliens the right to vote in N.H. in direct violation of both State and Federal Constitutional requirements.

(d). Under state and federal Constitutions, the Appellant was disenfranchised, and his vote diluted by this non-constitutional statutory scheme practiced by state election officials. The depravation and harm to a constitutionally fair and equal election process will continue.

(e). The inhabitants of this State have been deprived informed consent (Const. N.H.) about the illegitimate statutory process that alters constitutional voting using a series of legislative changes that expand voting to include ‘new’ unqualified votes and voters. This expansion of new voter classes is not allowed by definition in the State Constitution. These back-door alterations of the State Constitution occurred by the implementation of new ‘laws’ promoted by government officials over a period of time – each which circumvents the definition of those permitted to vote defined in the Constitution, thereby depriving the inhabitants of this State the due process required before amendment. Const. N.H. Part I, art. 1, art. 15 and Part II, art. 100 and Federal due process, 14th Am. Moore.

9. Bruen (2022) – A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bruen further articulated a two-step analysis for determining whether a law or regulation of constitutionally protected conduct is unconstitutional (as is claimed in this case). First, courts must determine whether any enumerated right (plain text) covers an individual’s conduct. Bruen.
10. If so, then the “Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the Government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition regulating the right in question. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the enumerated right’s unqualified command.
11. In the instant case, the plain text of the State Constitution uses the specific word “inhabitant” 25 times, which underlies the Appellant’s claims because he is an inhabitant of N.H. Therefore, the burden falls on the Appellees to justify the law showing that it is consistent with State and Federal constitutions and election laws written pursuant thereof. Here, the plain text word “inhabitant” has been dropped, and new words substituted to expand the classes of who-is eligible-to vote. By altering the plain text meaning to now include whole new groups and classes of voters not included in the original language, the legislature improperly impinged on the Constitutional authority. New groups of voters include out-of-state students, and out-of-state residents, and a plethora of others who, under expanded and redefined words, do not qualify to vote under the plain text language meaning of the State Constitution.
12. Appellees cited no relevant authority to amend the Const. N.H. without the consent of her inhabitants as mandated by the state constitution (Part I, art. 1). Appellees needed to and failed to show some historical analogue relating to: (a). Discretionary Ballot Counting Devices; (b). Statutory expansion of absentee voting; (c). Legislative or other legitimate authority for sua sponte, granting resident aliens voting rights, notwithstanding the Constitution; (d). and must point to some “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evince a comparable tradition of regulation.” Bruen.
13. The Lynch Pin is the depravation of due process by state actors who altered the State Constitution by using new legislative terms and “voting processes” to improperly expand the number of new voters (and ballots counted) without first properly submitting the proposed changes to the inhabitants for approval or disapproval, as required under state and federal law. Legislative fiat was used to promote and enact the constitutional requirements necessary for these and other voter-enhancement changes to occur.
14. All of the new specific statutory voting schemes (including widespread absentee balloting manipulations and the extensive use of Ballot Counting Devices) complained of in this case are novel issues to the court, but each is a type of bureaucratic manipulation to improperly and illegitimately expand the votes counted.
15. Appellees rely on their materially flawed argument of the 1976 Amendment, Question 8 (b). This political tactic was declared by this Court to be unconstitutional in Fischer v Governor 145 N.H. 28, 37 (2002). Resurrecting a political variation of the void argument and trying to apply it flawed reasoning represents legal misconduct.
16. Earlier decisive precedent/rulings at law, such as Fisher, were ignored by Appellees and the Court when dismissing the Appellant’s claims under Moore. The 1976 Question 8 amendment show the state has violated the Appellants substantive and procedural due process rights under both State and Federal Constitutions.
17. The lower Court and Appellees further evaded the historical facts and controlling 2000 state Court precedent of Fisher, which previously declared the 1976 Amendment Question 8 (b) – The Domicile Question – to be unconstitutional:

“It is clear, however, that the removal of the “proper qualifications” language from the voting provision did not conform to the scope of the amendment intended by the constitutional convention. Specifically, it did not relate to the four intended substantive changes regarding age, domicile, duties of the secretary of state, and absentee voting, and far exceeded the convention’s remaining intent to “simplify” the wording of Article 11. Indeed, as noted by the State, the ballot questionnaire submitted to the citizens for ratification of the 1974 amendment failed to alert the voters to any substantive change to the legislature’s authority to generally determine voter qualifications.” (Emphasis added) id.

18. This issue was pled as precedent in the Appellant’s lower court claim, which Judge Ruoff avoided, so is raised again for appeal.
19. Appellees’ “statements of facts and law” regarding discussion of Question 8 (re: the 1974 amendment) lack legitimacy, as Gerber v. King 107 N.H. 495, 225 A.2d 620 (1967) [hereinafter “Gerber”] forbids the comingling of five separate and distinct yes or no questions for one yes or no answer, as was done in the instant case on absentee ballots. The issue was resolved more than two decades ago by this court.
20. It is disingenuous now for Appellees (who represent the state’s highest elected political and legal officers) to claim in 2023, that the reason the 1976 Question 8 (a) was presented to voters was to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. This and other “question-8-arguments” have already been briefed, but Appellee’s present response is intentionally obfuscation and misleading because the age-18-ballot question was moot long before the time it showed up on the ballot in question in 1976.
21. The voting age reduction/vote had already been completed and enrolled as law in 1974 – two years before it was placed on the 1976 ballot. The issue was void, although referenced by Appellees’ counsel as important “precedent” to dismiss this case. The earlier 1974 age-vote stemmed from a CACR proposed by the legislature to voters, who on November 5, 1974, voted 147,484 to 57,756 to reduce voter age. (See Exhibit E, New Hampshire Manual, cited at page 17, Appellant’s Brief).
22. It is disingenuous now for Appellees to aver that 1976 Question 8 (e) ballot somehow represents binding precedent allowing the use (in 2020, 2022, and thereafter) expanded multi-part legislative scheme to unconstitutionally expand voting to new classes, but without a constitutional amendment, since this court previously disallowed such tactics as void as far back as 1967 in Gerber.
23. The responses in opposition are stubbornly disingenuous, applying misstatements of fact and law, while omitting contemporary precedent, including Moore and Bruen. Gerber for example, upholds the common law, and prohibits comingling of multiple unrelated questions to voters with one yes or no choice; Gerber pointedly disallowed the voter to vote yes to part of one specific question and no to another part of the same question. The plain text of the last sentence of the 1784 Const. N.H. Part II, Art. 99, in 1792 states:

“Provided that no alteration shall be made in this constitution before the same shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places, and approved by two thirds of the qualified voters present, and voting upon the “question.”” (Emphasis added) “[N]o alteration”, and “question” are singular terms, not plural.

24. In addition to other causes of action and complaints in the Appellant’s Brief, these and other fundamental voter-integrity issues, require review and reversal in 2023, under Moore and Bruen.
25. The Court is requested to schedule a review hearing with oral arguments on this matter at the earliest opportunity, as the issues raised are a matter of re occurring public harm through the improper dilution of each citizen’s vote in the 2020, 2022 and upcoming elections.
26. Following the hearing, this Honorable Court is requested to grant remedial, prospective, and other relief as appropriate.

August 29, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel Richard

Daniel Richard

xxxxx

xxxxxx

1danielrichard@protonmail.com

Certificate of service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served through the Court’s e-filing system to all parties of record.

August 29, 2023 /s/ Daniel Richard

Daniel Richard

The post THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT: Daniel Richard v. Sununu … appeared first on Granite Grok.

Burning Man is an annual event that attracts some interesting people. It’s like an Elite-secular-cultist-hippy gathering (Vermont has a very progressive local version). Three days ago, traffic to the event was backed up because some elite hippy climate cultists had blocked a Nevada road on Tribal Land. The Native American Tribal Police responded.

You’ve likely seen the video. These indigenous peace officers were none too kind about the miles-long emissions-generating convoy of cars, trucks, and campers despoiling their native lands. But their response makes for an excellent example of how this sort of thing should be handled anywhere it happens.

This is how the police deal with climate protesters in Nevada. That’s how you do it. pic.twitter.com/y8Qy1nkG7H

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 28, 2023

Breitbart has more, including a video of the climate cult being confronted by displeased motorists, the traffic backup, and (of course) the clearing of the blockade by Tribal police.

There is no stopping to say “Excuse me sir or Mame,” just deliberate, decisive action.

#BREAKING: Nevada Rangers has rammed their truck through climate protesters as they attempted to shut down the Burning Man Arts and Music Festival

#Blackrock | #Nevada
⁰Climate activists attempted to halt a significant music and arts festival known as Burning Man, which is… pic.twitter.com/ormnHYIPgy

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) August 28, 2023

“The Rangers arrested the protesters for “trespassing on tribal land.”

That’s got to hurt. Elite Hippies and Native American police ganging up on Climate Cultists opposed to Burning Man’s assemblage using “private jets and single-use plastics, along with addressing various other environmental issues.”

More popcorn, please.

The post Progressive Three-Way: Climate Cultists vs. Burning Man Hippies & “Indigenous” People – Fight! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Most politicians are clueless when it comes to education policies and research. Will Stewart, Democrat candidate for Mayor in Manchester, proved that with a recent post on his Facebook page.  Will Stewart is beating the drums to get kids into pre-school. He cites getting children ready to learn in Kindergarten so they can be reading by 3rd grade.

Most politicians have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to teaching children how to read. He has no idea that pushing children to perform academically before they are cognitively ready can have a negative impact on young children.

Pre-school should be fun, but there is no need for children to go to pre-school. In fact, experts are telling parents the opposite of what Stewart is selling.

In an article in the Atlantic titled: The New Preschool Is Crushing Kids, they are saying, “Today’s young children are working more, but they’re learning less.”  They go on to say:

A child who’s supposed to read by the end of kindergarten had better be getting ready in preschool. As a result, expectations that may arguably have been reasonable for 5- and 6-year-olds, such as being able to sit at a desk and complete a task using pencil and paper, are now directed at even younger children, who lack the motor skills and attention span to be successful.

They wisely point out that this attitude towards early childhood education is harming children, not helping them.

Much of this began after the release of the Common Core Standards. If Stewart actually read them, he would have noticed that the early childhood standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children.

A Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative
was issued by the Alliance for Childhood. www.allianceforchildhood.org  In the document they raised “GRAVE CONCERNS” about the Common Core Standards for young children.  They warned:

The draft standards made public in January conflict with compelling
new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood
education about how young children learn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them
in kindergarten and the early grades.

And

There is little evidence that such standards for young children lead to later success. While an introduction to books in early childhood is vital, research on the links between the intensive teaching of discrete reading skills in kindergarten and later success is inconclusive at best.
Many of the countries with top-performing high-school students do not begin formal schooling until age six or seven.

There is science to back this up. Stanford researchers say we are sending children to school way too early.

A new study from Stanford University shows that Danish kids who postponed kindergarten for up to one year showed dramatically higher levels of self-control.

“We found that delaying kindergarten for one year reduced inattention and hyperactivity by 73% for an average child at age 11,” Thomas Dee, one of the co-authors and a Stanford Graduate School of Education professor, said in a release.

All of this was reported here.

Stewart isn’t taking into account any of the research that has been done on Common Core and its impact on young children. He hasn’t taken into account how children succeed in foreign countries when delaying the start of formal education.

If he really cares about children being able to read, then he should pay close attention to the reading programs used in our public schools. Many students are not receiving quality reading instruction. That’s where he should focus if he wants our kids to become good readers. Stewart’s vision includes policies and spending on programs that have been proven to harm children instead of helping them.

The post Manchester Mayoral Candidate Will Stewart’s Harmful Education Proposal appeared first on Granite Grok.

The internet threw traditional news and media for a loop, a change that many have weathered but which has metastasized – or perhaps systematized is a better word – the media’s role as the propaganda arm of the Federal government. When we say The Media, we mean Pravda, and WashPo is as reliable a mouthpiece as it gets.

The Washington Post exists to be a stenographer for the inside-the-beltway-Georgetown-uniparty-deep-state message while clinging bitterly to a tagline it has worked hard to contradict. Democracy Dies in Darkness.

In its truest sense, Democracy to them means mob rule and WashPo (WP) may have begun its final descent.

In a recent piece in the technology section, WP bemoans a BLM-like decline in policing on platforms like Facebook and YouTube with X (pronounced “Twitter”) more than just a lost cause. Musk helped expose the government’s use of socials to suppress speech with which the Post disagrees. That webby, vaporous thing they call “misinformation,” whose proper spelling is “c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i–p.”

The Feds got busted silencing speech, and it has the information gatekeepers at The Washington Post wondering how they might get Adam and Eve back into the Garden where they can try to control their knowledge of good and evil. The act itself is evil, unconstitutional, and should be considered professional misconduct. But a modern American press quick to bemoan monopolies wants very much to secure one for itself.

The secret to saving Machine Media is to break as many of its competitors as possible by whatever means necessary. A cartel on information, knowledge, and ideas. To control what people think and believe. All the things the First Amendment exists to prevent and under whose rubric the Post operates its campaign for an information oligarchy that oversees acceptable speech. It’s all very Animal Farm as the corporate press feasting at Farmer Jones’ table, in his house, wearing his clothes, and pantomiming his mannerisms while squawking about how not all information is equal.

But what is it, this misinformation? No one knows (least of all the authors of the piece in WaPo), but I’d guess it is a lot like pornography to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. They’ll know it when they see it, and if it falls outside the tunnels that already control its vision, they’ll be sure to consult sources inside the government for confirmation.

It is everything you ever wanted in a free press, just without the freedom.

I wonder if they do not grasp, like many of the factions on the fractious left, that the water they carry for them now will be used to waterboard them later. Maybe even drown them. The history is clear on how this goes, and it’s not even old. Mao was a few decades back with tactics not much different from those of Chavez when he wrecked Venezuela.

But I suppose they are too busy rewriting history or erasing it to take time to learn from it. Or they assume they’ll still be there after the Revolution, but then, that’s what they all think until someone puts them up against a wall.

HT | Reclaim The Net

The post If Democracy Dies in Darkness Why is WaPo Trying to Turn Out the Lights? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Cryptocurrency is a fast-growing industry that is constantly evolving. With the growth of the blockchain space, it is important to stay up-to-date with the latest news, alerts and coin updates. Gagarin News is a platform dedicated to providing the latest cryptocurrency news and updates, so users can stay informed in the ever-changing crypto market.

What is Gagarin News?
Gagarin News is an online platform that provides news, analysis, data and insights into the world of cryptocurrency. With its user-friendly interface, Gagarin News enables users to easily access the latest news and updates related to the crypto market, without any prior knowledge or experience. In addition, users can also set up alerts to receive notifications about new developments or changes in the market.

How Does Gagarin News Work?
Gagarin News provides users with a comprehensive range of news related to the crypto market. Users can access news stories, market analysis, market data, and insights into the crypto industry. In addition, users can set up alerts to receive notifications when new stories, analysis, or data are posted. Gagarin News also offers a live coin update feature, which provides users with up-to-date information on the prices of different coins.

What Are the Benefits of Gagarin News?
Gagarin News provides users with a convenient and easy-to-use platform that enables them to stay informed about the latest developments and changes in the crypto market. In addition, users can set up alerts to be notified of any new developments, enabling them to stay one step ahead of the market. Additionally, Gagarin News provides users with a live coin update feature, enabling them to stay informed about the prices of different coins.

Conclusion
Gagarin News is an online platform that provides users with the latest news, analysis, data, and insights into the world of cryptocurrency. With its user-friendly interface and live coin update feature, Gagarin News enables users to easily access the latest news and updates related to the crypto market, so they can stay informed in the ever-changing crypto market.

The post Gagarin News: Stay Up-To-Date with Crypto Market News, Alerts, and Coin Updates appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Vermont Futures Project (VFP), a spinoff of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, is conducting a statewide tour of what they call “community conversations, and … strategic stakeholder visits in all fourteen counties” to gather input for their 2024 Economic Plan for Vermont.

(Side Note: I didn’t think I could loathe the term “stakeholder” any more than I do. It’s a nauseating euphemism for “special interest” used by special interests. But “strategic stakeholder” takes the prize.)

The prime objective of the VFP is to increase Vermont’s population from where it is now at 645,000 to 802,000 by 2035.

Are they serious?

I don’t say that to mock the objective. I am seriously asking if these people are serious about achieving such a goal. And, after looking through VFP’s recent presentations, videos, and press releases, sadly, my conclusion is NO, they are not serious. They are not serious because they are unwilling to identify and call out the root problem causing Vermont’s decades-long economic and population stagnation, which is our radical leftist political establishment and the policies they are putting into practice.

VFP boasts that it is data-driven. “How can we use data to support the evolution of Vermont’s economy toward a thriving future full of opportunity for all?” they ask. Well, as I have previously written (See: Vermont’s Legislature Is Blowing Big Bucks on Failed Experiments), there is plenty of data pointing to the fact that the states that are gaining the most population, such as Florida, Texas, the Carolinas, and Tennessee are Red States implementing low tax, entrepreneurially friendly policies that give their citizens more freedom to make their own decisions.

The data also shows that the states losing the most population, such as California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, are Blue States that are raising taxes, driving up the cost of day-to-day living with expensive, nanny state regulations, and micromanaging every aspect of their citizens’ lives from telling them what kind of bags they’re allowed to use in the grocery store, to banning the kinds of vehicles they like to drive. These are states that look an awful lot like Vermont.

So, if you are truly data-driven, VFP, and are truly committed to increasing Vermont’s population with an eye toward building a healthy growing economy, how about pointing that out? Loudly.

Beyond the data, use your common sense.

VFP rightly notes that the biggest obstacle to population growth is a severe lack of any, let alone affordable, housing. If you can’t find or afford a place to live in a state, odds are you’re not going to live in it. So, what political party’s policies are making it difficult and expensive to build housing in Vermont? Hmmm….

Moreover, productive workers in their prime earning years are simply not going to choose to pay some of the highest property taxes in the country (on the property they can’t afford in the first place) when other states deliver more municipal services for a fraction of the cost. If they’re choosing between a state with a high-income tax plus a new payroll tax on their earnings versus one with low-income tax rates and no payroll tax, which one do you think they’re going to pick? A state that bans the kind of vehicle you need to do your job or one that doesn’t? A state that forces you to register and pay a fee to engage in your livelihood versus one that has no such requirement? One with abnormally high health insurance costs versus one with more affordable options? The list goes on and on.

So, instead of pussyfooting around the countryside saying stuff like, “I am looking at the Vermont Climate Action Plan, and seeing a bit of language that really stands out to me, which is Vermont needs to prioritize helping the people who will be most affected by climate change,” per Kevin Chu, VFP’s executive director (Seriously, BARF!), how about an aggressive campaign explaining that no young (or any age for that matter) worker is going to choose to migrate to state that has no affordable housing due primarily to that very climate change-oriented governing philosophy and document you just cited.

I understand and, to some degree, sympathize with members of the Vermont business community’s timidity in this regard. The Democrat/Progressive ruling class is vindictive, and they do, at present, control the game. The folks behind VFP have some very nice businesses, and it would be a shame if something were to, you know, happen to them. But at some point, if you want the bully to stop taking your lunch money, you’ve got to punch him in the nose.

VPF’s website says the next stops on its statewide info-gathering tour will be in Windsor County on September 13 and Caledonia County on September 21. Weirdly, they don’t say where or what time. But should that information ever come to light, I encourage readers to show up and give them an earful. In the meantime, they are asking for input via this survey. Take a minute to look at it and fill it out. Something along the lines of “time to grow a pair.”

Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank.

The post Business Group Wants 802,000 Vermonters by 2035 – (Ignores Reasons Why People Don’t Move There) appeared first on Granite Grok.

On August 25th, 2023, a group of approximately 100 gathered in Concord to demand a federal investigation into the cover-ups of abuse at the Youth Detention Center. They blamed the Attorneys General and others for the cover-ups. They are right.

Each Governor appoints the Attorney General, and each Attorney General has never addressed but covered up the misconduct of police and others who are involved in enabling, encouraging, and hiding the abuse. When David Meehan brought a class action lawsuit against the State on behalf of hundreds of abuse victims, the State, under AG Gordon MacDonald, with Geoffrey Ward as his Deputy and Jane Young as Assistant AG, dismissed them for “victim negligence.”

The US Attorney’s office has declined to state whether a federal investigation will take place. That US Attorney for New Hampshire is Jane Young. She was very likely involved in drafting the State’s “victim negligence” response to David Meehan’s class action suit. Her federal prosecutors are Geoffrey Ward (who was head of public integrity under Gordon MacDonald but failed to respond to emails from Rep. Susan Homola regarding police misconduct. This was after John Scippa of Police Standards & Training had forwarded my concerns to the AG’s office and after Jane Young had promised me that Geoffrey Ward would respond. We were ignored, and files got deleted, and then Jane Young and Geoffrey Ward got rewarded by failing upward to become US Attorney and federal prosecutor, respectively. The relationship between the NH AG’s office and the US Attorney’s office in New Hampshire makes it impossible for a transparent investigation to take place because everyone is complicit, whether passively or actively. It is the same pattern we saw in the cover-ups of the FRM Ponzi scheme, which also involved the AG’s office’s failures. That was over a decade ago, and nothing has happened. All the same, people preside over how the state’s business is run – it’s just musical chairs.

Even the current messaging requesting an investigation involves someone who might be compromised: Charles Glenn.

Charles Glenn is the former stepson of Thomas Grover. Thomas Grover was adopted by Patricia Grover of DCYF. He was a drug addict who was offered money (substantiated in statements) to accuse Father Gordon MacRae, who was framed by Police Detective James F McLaughlin, whose name was hidden on the Laurie List but known about by AG Gordon MacDonald.

“Reportedly (and I understand that the AG’s office has been aware of this since 2012), Charles Glenn once approached Father Gordon MacRae in Concord men’s prison library where Macrae was a clerk (around 2008 or so). ” He allegedly said to MacRae, “You know the case against you was bogus, right?”. MacRae allegedly told him that he did know this but wanted to know how Charles Glenn knew it. Charles Glenn told him that his mother, Trina Ghedoni, was married to Thomas Grover during the years that Charles Glenn was in the Youth Detention Center. Later, Charles Glenn allegedly approached a friend of Father Gordon MacRae’s – Edward Silva (deceased). Silva relayed that Charles Glenn had information that could undo the case against Father Gordon MacRae but that he wanted money to provide that information. MacRae told Silva that this would render the information useless, and so it went no further.

Jim Abbott- a former FBI special agent- who was investigating the case against Gordon MacRae, interviewed Trina Ghedoni five times. She told him that she and Thomas Grover were visiting Charles Glenn at the YDC. The case against Father Gordon MacRae had exploded in the local media by then so Charles Glenn was well aware that Thomas Grover was his primary accuser. During a later visit with Thomas Grover alone at YDC, Grover allegedly told Charles Glenn that Father Gordon MacRae had never actually touched him but that he was about to “get a lot of money for this story”. Trina Ghedoni told Jim Abbott that she learned of those conversations between Thomas Grover and her son only after she divorced Thomas Grover. She also told Jim Abbott that James F. McLaughlin and therapist Pauline Goupil (who motioned for Thomas Grover to cry during his testimony from the back of the courtroom observed by witnesses who wrote to the judge about it but were ignored) were Thomas Grover’s primary coaches as he developed this scam.

Trina Ghedoni told Jim Abbott that she would ask her son, Charles Glenn, to cooperate. By that time, her son was in the NH State Prison. Apparently, Charles Glenn was in constant trouble at the prison, and not long after his first conversations with Father Gordon MacRae, he ended up in punitive segregation. Jim Abbott visited him at least three times and was able to elicit a signed statement that Thomas Grover admitted on numerous occasions that his charges against MacRae were “a total fraud for money.”

This became the basis for the “new evidence” that put Father Gordon MacRae’s habeas corpus petition into state and federal courts in 2012. But the state courts declined any hearing. Charles Glenn’s and Trina Ghedoni’s statements were attached to the habeas corpus. While Charles Glenn languished in and out of punitive segregation, he tried to talk to Father Gordon MacRae, but the latter stopped him, advising him that it would be seen as witness tampering. When he ended up in segregation again, he was angry with his mother for some unknown reason. He wrote a letter to the NH AG (Michael Delaney at the time or Joseph Foster) in which he accused Jim Abbot of having an affair with his mother (baseless, I understand). He said that his prior signed statement was not true. He wanted to get out of segregation and start over somewhere else. Mysteriously he was moved to a Connecticut prison after revoking his exculpatory statement against Father Gordon MacRae. Charles Glenn is now back in New Hampshire’s state prison and told Father Gordon MacRae recently that he was cooperating in order to get a federal investigation going.

On 30th August 2018, AG Gordon MacDonald was noted in the Concord Monitor to have argued against the release of the Laurie List, which had James F. McLaughlin’s name added to it in June 2018 for crimes dating back to 1985.

The investigation into James F. McLaughlin is being dragged out. He’s working in DA Chris McLaughlin’s office currently, which raises questions as to why a DA would hire a dishonest police officer at all unless it is to be complicit in going through and deleting more files.

AG Gordon MacDonald claimed “victim negligence” when he rejected the class action lawsuit against the State & YDC. No. Gordon MacDonald is involved in a racket that involved the extortion of the Diocese of Manchester and cover-ups of other priests’ sexual misconduct and abuse of position off the back of James F McLaughlin’s framing of Father Gordon MacRae; the extortion of St Paul’s School and cover-ups of sexual abuse there off the framing of scholarship student Owen Labrie. That involved one of James F. McLaughlin’s proteges: Police Detective Julie Curtin and James F. McLaughlin himself, who Gordon MacDonald brought out of retirement.

Jane Young as US Attorney for New Hampshire, is never going to investigate Governors, AGs, local attorneys, or non-profits because she is a gatekeeper, not a truth seeker.

I wrote a petition over a year ago to seek an investigation from the Senate Ways & Means Committee and the US DOJ’s office regarding the Youth Detention Center. Maybe now there has been a protest and national news organizations are picking it up, this will gain some traction. You can read it and sign it here.

The post The Youth Detention Center Scandal Gets Bigger appeared first on Granite Grok.

Have you ever had a few things you thought were worth sharing but not worthy of, say, 600 words? I’m not saying I couldn’t write 600 words for each, but that would be wasting words, and I’d rather just share them together and save 1800 words (minus these).

First up, some hilarious pandemic 2.0 fearmongering pushback. “How about No!”



Next! Tucker Carlson delivers some remarks in Hungary, which are what you’d expect from a guy who is still hitting his stride. Watch the first few minutes and you’ll want to watch all of it.



And finally, we have shared cuts of Democrats as Election Denires. President Trump just shared one on Truth Social and now we’re sharing it with you.

The post “How About No!,” Tucker in Hungary, And More Democrats Denying Elections appeared first on Granite Grok.

The President of the United States has been on vacation for most of the summer, and we have not had the pleasure of a Karine Jeanne-Pierre for two months. You would think that with that time off, KJP would have come to the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room with a loaded binder.

And the media reps would have done their homework and come up with meaty questions to which Americans want to hear the answers.

We were disappointed on both fronts.

One of the most profound questions for the hapless press secretary was regarding the ownership by China of all the panda bears in American zoos. With all of the issues on the Federal Government level, why are we wasting time on panda questions? Pandas are cute, but the person who asked that question should have their credentials taken back.

Peter Doocy asked a couple of questions and even snuck in some follow-up queries, but none warranted answers from Karine. Her job has evolved to deflecting and referring all questions to other departments. Why does her job exist? He threw her a softball question about the new guideline from the Alcohol Czar suggesting two beers a week. She knew nothing about it. He then pivoted to questions about Hunter’s art sales, home in Malibu, the Biden Brand, and Hunter’s selling access to the White House. She would not touch any of these and deflected to Hunter’s lawyers.

Doocy got her very flustered, and her subsequent few responses were disjointed. She did not and does not handle pressure well. If the answer is not in the binder, it does not exist in her head. For the Administration that claims to be the most transparent, they may be the most opaque. It is no wonder they keep a vice on Biden’s lips, but this country is getting no insight or answers from Biden and his team. It is also clear that the Biden campaign plan will be to minimize his appearances, no debates, no interviews, and let the corrupt Democrat machine do its job.

Americans deserve better than what we are getting from Biden. We can blame Joe, but much of the blame sits with the media. They must insist on access and, if denied, report on why. There is no digging. There is no one held accountable. There is no story that has legs unless it is negative about Donald Trump.

This shielding of America from the truth about the Biden Administration has been part of the game plan since 2019. The less Americans know about Biden, the easier it is to manipulate him and the public. Biden ran his campaign from his Delaware basement, and this mess our country is in was the result. We must change course and correct the mistakes of the Biden term. We have said it many times, but we have one chance to save this Republic: to replace Joe Biden with a solid Conservative Republican. It is time to let the adults drive the bus.

The post Oh, Please Update Us On The Pandas appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democrats are seeking to cement permanent control of America. The modus operandi is the criminalization of the political opposition while they are hard at work, crippling the authority to which the opposition might appeal in defense of its rights.

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

Thomas Jefferson had words for this behavior.

• “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
• “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
• “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
• “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We are watching as American politics becomes a slow-motion car crash. Leftists in control of the Democrat party are attempting to criminalize their political opposition and weaponized the government against the people. We have Soviet-style show trials scheduled back to back to back, to back as they play“Show Me the Man, and I’ll Show You the Crime.”  Cases brought against not only Donald Trump but anyone who has surrounded him.

It is very dangerous to the rule of law when we start allowing lawyers to be charged for interactions with their clients.

These zealous prosecutors may have differing motives for twisting and reaching with the law to hang a defendant, but when they have to reach and twist to bring a prosecution, especially a political prosecution, they are nearly always wrong. Attacks on a former president, the current GOP front-runner, in the middle of his campaign for office is grandstanding.

These cases effectively criminalize seeking office by anyone who holds views contrary to the Uni-party. Frivolous and vengeful prosecutorial efforts are pursued in violation of laws, norms, and core principles of justice. But the message is clear, “You can go to jail if you disagree with us. If you threaten our power and privilege, there is a cost.”

Americans can longer be trusted to choose leaders within a narrow set of regime-approved bounds. The result is they must force their selections on us by whatever means, even though locking up the opposition has always been the definition of tyranny.

Jan. 6, 2021, served as a pretext to escalate the war and used to punish those with the “wrong” views. They were made political prisoners over questionable decisions made by unarmed citizens who have since been treated as hardened criminals.

The Justice Department tried to add terrorism enhancements to some Jan. 6 sentences, and “obstruction of an official proceeding” felony charges.  That’s preposterous. It had never before been applied to protesters. Now Special Counsel Jack Smith has thusly charged Trump.

This regime is threatening our most fundamental rights. When is enough too much, and how long will you stand for what’s going on?

The post Criminalizing Political Opposition appeared first on Granite Grok.

Just four and a half months since President Biden declared an end to the Covid “emergency,” the media is suddenly full of stories about the return of Covid. This time a new “variant” is being rolled out and the media, in collusion with big Pharma and the fear-industrial complex, are churning out stories about how forced masking is making a comeback.

Also, the “unvaccinated” are again to be denied basic human rights in the name of fighting a virus that the vaccine demonstrably does not protect against.

In short, they are desperately trying to revive the tyranny, insanity, and utter irrationality of the two-year Covid scare. And they are pretending none of us remembers how they destroyed society with their lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. They are hoping that none of us will remember the suicides, lost jobs, broken marriages, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, and the rest of what went along with the world’s experiment with global lockdown.

Even Fauci himself is back – like a moth drawn to the light of publicity. Despite all the scientific evidence that the lockdowns were a disaster, that they did far more harm than good, Fauci has re-emerged with his trademark arrogance and claimed that they were the right thing to do and should be done again if that’s what it takes to force people to take the vaccine. A vaccine that does not work.

They won’t even allow us to mention the spike in all-around mortality or the millions who may have been vaccine-injured the first time around. They want us to think that 20-year-old world-class athletes have always just dropped dead of heart attacks out of the blue. It’s all normal! Don’t question it! What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist? Are you a science-denier?

Yes, look for a renewal of all those old hollow phrases used to attack those of us who can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Their slogans are meant to silence any debate. The same “experts” like Fauci who claimed “I am the science” are back and they shamelessly demand to silence us again.

The big question is…why? Why are they doing this and how do they think they can get away with it a second time? One reason they believe they can get away with it again is that no one has ever been punished for what they did the first time. The Federal Government made sure that the pharmaceutical companies would not be liable for vaccine damages.

The public figures who openly became monsters, demanding the unvaccinated be drummed out of society and maybe even off the face of the earth have not been shamed or shunned. Politicians who displayed cowardice and worse have not been voted out of office for their treachery.

Why are they coming back around for another round of Covid tyranny? Fear is a weapon to gain control. Last time around they generated fear to radically change how America voted. Suddenly everyone was mailed ballots. How closely were they checked? No one knew and no one dared ask. The people who did ask about the election are now facing jail terms.

They want us to shut up while they do it again. Will we?

Ron Paul | Ron Paul Institute

The post A New Covid ‘Variant’…Just in Time for Election Season! appeared first on Granite Grok.

So I came across this. One of Sun-King Sununu’s minions boasting that His Majesty has a 91 percent approval rating among Republicans:

Yet the polls simultaneously show that President Trump … the anti-Sununu … is trouncing the field in FITN:

There are several explanations for these seemingly irreconcilable results. One is that UNH polling STINKS.

The other is that GOP voters in New Hampshire, to sort of paraphrase General Patton, really love a winner, and they see both Silver-Spoon-Sun-King and President Trump as winners.

Another explanation is that both of the above are true.

Whatever the explanation … the polling suggests that political cognitive dissonance is rampant in New Hampshire.

The post Political Cognitive Dissonance Rampant In New Hampshire appeared first on Granite Grok.