Only someone with a severe credibility issue must inject phrases into their talks to assure you they are telling the truth. I listened to a few minutes of the President’s speech in Chicago on Wednesday, and he used the term “I give you my word” and “I’m not lying” at least five times in the ten minutes I tuned in.

I couldn’t take more than ten minutes because I was fact-checking while listening, and the Pinocchios were stacking up. The sad thing was the President was receiving applause for every lie. Think about it. When discussing with friends or colleagues, do you have to remind them you are telling the truth, or do you enjoy a level of credibility with them that truth is assumed and understood? Biden does not possess such a luxury. The American people doubt every word he says, and for a good reason. He has a long track record of distorting the truth.

Wednesday was an opportunity for Biden to go into friendly territory. He spoke to union and pro-union people who lapped up every word the President uttered about his infrastructure and economic plan. He boasted that the New York Times gave his economic plan to the moniker, Bidenomics. Within a few weeks, he will claim he came up with the title. After all, plagiarism lives in this man’s soul. Biden’s assistant press secretary introduced the term this week, calling Bidenomics the term of the hour, day, week, month, year, and campaign. That seems to be over-glorifying a plan that only about 30% of Americans believe is good for the country.

Here are the fact checks by the House Republicans of Bidenomics.

FACT CHECK: Recovery Versus Creation

• Nearly 72 percent of all job gains since 2021 were simply jobs that were being recovered from the pandemic, not new job creation. In fact, when looking at today’s economy compared to pre-pandemic levels, employment is up only by 3.7 million, not 13 million.
• On the other hand, in his first 2.5 years, job creation under President Trump was 5 million—1.3 million more jobs than the current President in the same time frame after factoring in the recovery from the pandemic.

BIDEN CLAIM: “(President Biden) proved that a strong recovery and support for households brings more people into the workforce: a higher share of working age Americans are in the workforce now than at any time in more than 20 years and higher than on any day of the prior Administration.” 

FACT CHECK: Labor force participation was stronger under President Trump.

• The labor force participation rate remains 0.7 percentage points lower under Biden than it was when President Trump was in office.
• When adjusting for population gains, nearly 2 million more Americans are on the sidelines today than they were during the previous Administration.

BIDEN CLAIM: Under President Biden, American families are “better off than before the pandemic: Americans have more net worth and higher inflation-adjusted disposable incomes and a lower uninsured rate.”

FACT CHECK: Wages are NOT keeping up with Biden’s inflation crisis. 

• Real wages are down over 5 percent since President Biden entered the Oval Office.
• Since President Biden took office, the average worker has lost over $4,900 in real wages.

BIDEN CLAIM: The White House is “working to bring down the cost of living, including by lowering drug prices. Inflation has come down 11 months in a row.“

FACT CHECK: Inflation is still high and causing economic pain.

• Americans are still feeling the sting of this inflation crisis—prices are up 15.5 percent under Biden.
• Inflation remains over three times higher than just a couple years ago.
• The average family of four is paying $13,717 per year or $1,143 per month more to purchase the same goods and services as in January 2021.

BIDEN CLAIM: “President Biden and Congressional Democrats are delivering historic Investments in America that are creating good jobs around the country and revitalizing our communities.” The President “put policies in place that have contributed to more than $470 billion in private sector investment commitments.”

FACT CHECK: The “historic investments” made by Democrats don’t help the middle class. 

• The “Inflation Reduction Act” enacted by Democrats last year gave $271 billion in tax credits to pay for “green” energy projects that even liberals admit are a boon for the top 1 percent.
• These out of control “green” handouts are going to cost American communities an estimated $1.2 trillion, according to independent analysis by Goldman Sachs, nearly $1 trillion higher than original estimates.
• Companies with over $1 billion in sales receive more than 90 percent of special interest green energy tax subsidies.
• Some analysts estimate that banks and insurers alone receive over half of green energy checks, far more than any other industry or sector.

BIDEN CLAIM: Democrats are “supporting investments that have resulted in 800,000 manufacturing jobs, nearly doubling manufacturing construction, and more resilient US supply chains.”

• 49.7 percent of the tax will be borne by the manufacturing industry, according to analysis by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
• The Tax Foundation estimates this new tax will cost 20,000 jobs and slow investment and economic growth.
• Workers in Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Kentucky would endure the largest economic hit from the new tax, according to the Heritage Foundation.

BIDEN CLAIM:  Biden set “out to rebuild American infrastructure, so that we no longer rank 13th in the world but instead have world-class infrastructure.” The President enacted “the largest investment in combatting the climate crisis in U.S. history,” paving the way for hundreds of thousands” of good-paying jobs. 

• China—Batteries
  • Today, China controls over 50 percent of the processing capacity of key EV battery inputs like lithium, cobalt, and graphite.
  • China’s influence over the EV supply chain widens to around 90 percent in manufacturing and processing in a number of battery materials and minerals.
  • According to a report from the liberal think tank SAFE, 60 to 100 percent of all battery minerals are processed in China.
• China—Solar
  • According to the U.S. Department of Energy, China controls nearly 80 percent of the entire solar production supply chain, including 97 percent of solar wafers capacity, 81 percent of solar cell capacity, and 77 percent of global capacity for finished solar modules or panels.
• China—Wind
  • After the IRA passed, global wind turbine orders reached record levels, 90 percent higher year-over-year in Q4 2022, with 65 percent of those orders attributable to China.
• Despite buses and rails accounting for only a tiny fraction of Americans’ travel, mass transit and Amtrak receive the same amount of funding as highways.
• The bill includes over $15 billion in woke climate funding initiatives that will simply healp wealthy Americans buy more electric vehicles. 

BIDEN CLAIM: “President Biden has signed legislation to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion” and is “committed to ensuring the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations pay their fair share and lowering prescription drug costs by cutting wasteful giveaways to Big Pharma.”

• In 2021, keeping spending at the levels projected in January 2020 or February 2021 would have resulted in the 2021 deficit being $2.0 or $1.1 trillion lower, respectively.
• In 2022, the deficit would have been between $400 billion and $1.2 trillion lower given had spending remained at the levels projected in any of the three prior CBO baselines.
• Notably, had spending in 2022 been what CBO projected it would be when Biden took office – without the impact of his failed economic policies – the budget deficit would have been its lowest since 2001, which was the last time the government ran a surplus.
• Had spending stayed at any of the previously projected levels for both years, combined deficits would have been between $1.5 and $3.2 trillion lower than the actual deficits incurred.

Government spending is the primary driver of deficits and President Biden and Congressional Democrats have engaged in an unprecedented $11 trillion partisan spending spree, including:

• $709 billion on student loan waivers and giveaways that forces the 87 percent of Americans without student loans to pay for the loans of the 13 percent who do.
• An $80 billion slush fund for the IRS to hire 87,000 new agents.
• Roughly $100 billion bailout of union multiemployer pension plans that overpromised and underdelivered for their workers, ultimately offloading the costs onto the American taxpayers.

BIDEN CLAIM: “In contrast, House Republicans want to: Enact massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations – adding trillions of dollars to the deficit in order to deliver a $175,000 average annual tax cut to the top 0.1 percent (incomes over $4 million).”

The Heritage Foundation explains:

• “Tax cuts as a percentage of taxes paid in 2017 were largest for the lowest-income Americans and smallest for the top 1 percent, measured by adjusted gross income (AGI).
• “Similarly, the percentage decrease in effective tax rates was about 5 percent for the highest-income group, and 16 percent for the half of Americans whose income is below the median.
• “After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), higher-income taxpayers now pay a larger share of all taxes. By this metric, the income tax system was made more progressive. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40 percent of income taxes in 2018, and 38 percent in 2017.”

Meanwhile, Biden’s supercharged IRS stands to target families making under $400,000 a year:

• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that Democrats’ Inflation Act, which supercharges the IRS with 87,000 new agents, will lead to more audits and enforcement measures, and higher taxes for families making less than $400,000.

BIDEN CLAIM: “Our recovery is the strongest of any major economy.”

FACT CHECK: President Biden’s policies have driven us back into a recession.

After experiencing consecutive quarters of declining Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to start 2022, the Biden administration was quick to divert attention to alternative measures of economic output, such as Gross Domestic Income (GDI).

However, as House Budget Committee Republicans observed last month, these alternative measures no longer point in the administration’s favor. GDI – which measures the economy through things like income, profits, and taxes rather than production — has decreased in each of the past two months.

• Gross Domestic Output (GDO), which is the average of GDP and GDI, and was once described by the Obama Council of Economic Advisers as being “a better gauge…of GDP growth than either GDP or GDI individually” has also experienced negative growth in 4 of the last 5 quarters.
• According to a recent report by Heritage, “the latest economic data show the economy might be doing a ‘double dip,’ where a recession is followed by a brief period of growth and then another recession.”
• President Biden’s policies are projected to cause the slowest economic growth in almost a century.

BIDEN CLAIM: “Family economic security is stronger than pre-pandemic.”

• Household net worth is 4.7 percent lower than when President Biden took office when adjusting for inflation.
• Credit card debt, adjusted for inflation is 14.6 percent higher than when President Biden took office.
• The monthly mortgage payment on an average home has doubled during Biden’s presidency, increasing from $1,300 to $2,600. 

BIDEN CLAIM: “Gas prices are down from their summer 2022 peak.”

FACT CHECK: Gas and energy prices remain significantly higher than when President Biden took office.

• Gas prices are over 34 percent higher than when President Biden took office.
• Energy prices are up 28.5 percent from when President Biden took office.

This is a much longer post than my norm, but with this many fact-checks, I am more than confident that most people will be astonished by the number of interpretations or corrections of Biden’s “facts.” These fact checks are accurate. I give you my word.

The post Fact Checkin’ Lyin’ Joe Biden’ appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Democrat’s latest get-out-the-vote scheme already did its damage, so this seems like a moot point, but it does one thing. It saves taxpayers (or, more likely, their grandchildren) a trillion dollars plus interest.

SCOTUS has killed Biden’s effort to forgive or reduce student loans DEBT.

 

“Last year, the Secretary of Education established the first comprehensive student loan forgiveness program, invoking the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) for authority to do so.

“The Secretary’s plan canceled roughly $430 billion of federal student loan balances, completely erasing the debts of 20 million borrowers and lowering the median amount owed by the other 23 million from $29,400 to $13,600.  … Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree.”

 

The HEROES Act is not a blanket permission slip to give away taxpayer dollars for government-backed student loans (full decision here). The Justices also note that MISSOURI is harmed by the move, giving it the standing necessary for the case to have legs. The HEROES Act did provide the Secretary of Education the authority “to rewrite that statute from the ground up.”

The program was paused when challenged and is not deemed illegal. The government cannot reduce or forgive student loans unless Congress revisits the statute or crafts a new one that specifically grants the Se. of Education this power.

That’s not likely to happen anytime soon but be prepared for it if we find ourselves saddled with a Democrat Majority House and Senate.

 

 

The post Breaking: US Supreme Court Rules Against Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Scheme appeared first on Granite Grok.

Nitzakhon is on special assignment somewhere in Asia, and he’ll be away for a few weeks. That’s a long time to go without Monday memes or the ridicule and collateral damage from overflows and Fridays, so I’ll do what I can to keep it going until he can get back.

I’ve also added a few pics that are not memes but that I stumbled across in my travels and were just too cool not to share.

Reminder – not everything in these meme posts will be kid-friendly. If you are the adult in the room, be the adult in the room.

Here we go!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** No idea if this is true ***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** Might be Chicago ***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The DOJ did investigate Pence for classified doc handling – the case was closed without action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** A Democrat NH House Rep ***

*** My Response ***

 

And, as promised, some sort of kind of cool more inspirational fare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Friday Meme Overflow ++ appeared first on Granite Grok.

We learned that when Republicans show up they can get the job done. You can see how razor-slim the votes were on some of these bills when they were voted on party lines – slim as in 1 vote! Two things we learned for sure this year: attendance matters, and so does “sticking together.”

We learned that 10 Committee of Conference Reports (and the respective bills) died because they were not signed off. That included the establishment of an election information/voter registration portal (SB70) and Licensure of Music Therapists (SB532), and a Therapeutic Cannabis bill (HB610).

We learned that aside from 8 bills on the Consent Calendar, we had a total of 10 Committee of Conference (CoC) bills to deal with today, and all of them were concurred with except 1. That one was SB61, the landfill siting bill. Arguments against this bill were so compelling that the vote total was flipped from 4 weeks ago when it passed the House 236Y-132N. This time, the concur on CoC went 134Y-238N! The House just decided that the Department of Environmental Services (DES) didn’t need to spend $200,000 on consultants to help them develop new rules for siting landfills. The House also did not see a need to put a 2-year pause on issuing new landfill permits because the landfill siting process takes 18 months anyway, and there are no current permits pending. Previous landfill siting bills have failed to get past the Governor’s desk. It is said that SB61 was one he would have signed. Be that as it may, I am certain we will be talking trash again next year!

We learned that Strafford County will have to come up with new County Commissioner districts, just like the nine other counties have. The CoC report for HB75 passed 186Y-185N after a Tabling vote failed 185Y-186N. No longer will there be “at large” elections for county commissioners in Strafford County? Well, at least candidates will save money on election signs next time around!

We learned that the school tuitioning bill CoC report for HB275 passed 187Y-185N. This was another win for School Choice as it allowed a pupil’s parents to pay the difference between a receiving district’s school tuition cost and the sending district’s tuition cap in a school tuition program. Again, House Democrats voted against parents and against School Choice.

We learned that the CoC report for HB315 passed by an astounding 275Y-98N. This was the “ban on gay panic defense” bill. The use of a person’s gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation cannot be used as a mitigating factor or excuse for murder. The bill bars a claim that a person should be able to argue for manslaughter vs. murder based solely on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of the victim. To be clear, this also does not limit a person’s ability to claim self-defense if they have committed a murder. At the end of the day, this bill makes it so that being who you are is never an excuse for violence against you.

We learned that the CoC report for HB536 was another narrow win for House Republicans as it passed 186Y-185N. This bill would allow for good faith negotiations for the purchase or lease of unused school district facilities. Apparently, House Democrats would rather have these buildings stay vacant and/or not be used by Charter Schools or other willing buyers/renters. This bill provides for much better use or disposal of school district facilities and is a win for municipal taxpayers. Class dismissed.

We learned that the CoC report for the energy bill HB281 passed 250Y-121N. House Science, Technology & Energy Committee Chairman Michael Vose (R-Epping) released the following statement: “This legislation is a resounding win for New Hampshire ratepayers and advocates for minimizing the size and influence of the administrative state. It removes unnecessary regulatory burdens, increases transparency on electric bills, and makes important changes to the Site Evaluation Committee. This bill will help us adequately meet the demand for energy, ensuring our long-term economic success.”

He went on to say, “This legislation repeals an out-of-date law requiring utilities to submit expensive and time-intensive reports to the Public Utilities Commission, the costs of which are passed on to ratepayers. As lawmakers, it is our duty to ensure laws are adapted to the times we are living. This section of the law made sense when utilities owned their energy production facilities, but that time has passed. This change will lower unnecessary regulatory burdens on the utilities and reduces the costs passed onto ratepayers.”

Furthermore Rep. Vose said, “It increases transparency for ratepayers by requiring electric bills to show the yearly price tag for complying with the renewable portfolio standard. This small change comes at no additional cost to ratepayers and allows them to see where their money is going. I am thankful House Democrats came around after they fought so fiercely against this common sense change.” If you recall, two weeks ago, when it came back amended from the Senate, House Democrats voted fiercely against HB281, with the first vote to Concur dying 176Y-180N and then the motion to Non-Concur and go to CoC passing 179Y-178N. What a difference a few weeks can make in the NH House!

We learned that HB221, the bill that contained language about game cameras being placed on private property, passed on a voice vote. This was after it had been pulled off of the Consent Calendar. There were some last-minute concerns raised about a private property owner not being able to take down unwanted game cameras without contacting law enforcement first. Another issue was that Fish and Game is essentially exempt from needing permission to post-game cameras on private property. Both of those issues will be addressed next year with an amendment to the language if this is signed into law by the Governor. We must not forget that the underlying bill regarding agricultural land development rights was also important and needed to be passed. This is a win for property rights, as no one should place game cameras on private property without first obtaining permission from the property owner.

We learned that Jack Sheehan was recognized by the House for his 14 years of service as the Sergeant at Arms staff. He is retiring, and we wish him well.

Additionally, we learned that over $20,000 was raised for Liberty House by our Legislative Golf Classic, and money was presented to Liberty House today by Rep. Michael Moffett (R-Loudon) and Rep. Jim Maggiore (D-North Hampton). A job well done by all!

We also learned that our House Session had a sweet ending as we all celebrated with the Speaker’s Ice Cream Social at the Upham Walker House.

Finally, we learned that the next time the House will convene will be for Veto Day in the fall. What bills that were passed by the legislature this year do you think will succumb to the Governor’s red pen? I guess we’ll see pretty soon! In the meantime, have a great Summer!

 

 

The post So Kids, What Did We Learn From This Week’s House Session (06/29/23)? appeared first on Granite Grok.

A lot of journalists these days have a vocabulary problem. In particular, they think that if someone wants to repair or reform an institution, he is anti-[that institution].

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to fix a broken government. That doesn’t make him ‘anti-government’ any more than someone who wants to fix his broken car is anti-car.

Kennedy believes so much in government that in his book about Anthony Fauci, he said that his biggest problem with the government’s response to COVID was that it would, in the long run, undermine the government’s ability to sustain the welfare state that it has built up over generations.

At PorcFest, he asked an excellent question: Why was the government’s response to a public health crisis handled by intelligence and military agencies? His answer wasn’t that the government should have just stayed out of it. He said that it should have been handled by other government agencies, like CDC and NIH.

If you criticize how your government has handled things, that doesn’t make you anti-government. It makes you a concerned citizen. It makes you an American.

I’ve been through this kind of thing myself. In Croydon, when I tried to fix a broken school district, I was labeled ‘anti-school,’ even though I had a long track record of speaking and writing about how the public school system could be changed to provide a better education for the children of New Hampshire. But as a member of the Free State Project, I was dangerous and, therefore, could be dismissed out of hand.

To illustrate how well this sort of thing works, at our most recent school budget hearing in Croydon, I proposed increasing the budget to hire reading specialists to ensure that whatever else they were doing, our students would become proficient in reading — something they aren’t doing now and have not been doing for a long time. Immediately, a couple of parents stood up and said: ‘I’m so tired of these Free Staters who just want to cut taxes and destroy the schools.’

If we want to have substantive policy discussions, we first have to stop using pejorative labels to short-circuit meaningful conversation.

In the current political climate, the only thing that many people feel they need to know in order to make their decisions is: Who are the bad guys here, and who are the good guys?

Labeling someone as anti-government (or anti-school) is effectively saying to people: You don’t have to listen to anything that this person has to say about why the government (or the schools) ought to operate differently. You don’t have to understand the questions he’s trying to raise, or the data he’s presenting, or the arguments he’s making, or the proposals he’s putting forth. He’s a bad person, so anything he says will also be bad, and that’s all you need to know about him.

The main function of journalism has turned into letting us know: Who are the bad guys here, and who are the good guys? Further analysis is not required.

In fact, further analysis is actively discouraged. Because once you know who the bad guys are, they must be defeated at any cost. And if things like civility and rationality and free speech and the rule of law must be tossed aside to secure victory, then as Nancy Pelosi said: “If there is some collateral damage for those who don’t share our views, well, so be it.”

I hope the editors at NH Journal will help lead journalism back to reporting what is being said and away from the current trend of signaling that we should ignore the people saying it.

Oh, wait — does that make me anti-journalism?

 

Originally published at NHJournal.com.

 

The post ‘Anti’ Labels Are Lazy Journalism appeared first on Granite Grok.

A rumor started going around not long after the “needle in every arm brigade” began treating untested experimental pharmaceuticals like priests proffering Holy Communion. Random batches of placebo were distributed as if this was a global human test trial, just as we’d suggested.

It wasn’t just us. There’s no math to suggest they could pump out this many doses quickly. At one dose per second, it would take 32 years to make the number they claim to have distributed with the promise of billions more.

Some people did something, and researchers in the EU who took the time to look discovered another inconvenient truth. The placebo batch myth is true, but it’s better – or I should say worse than that. The absence of adverse events most likely identifies people who got a placebo.

Reported adverse events were matched to vaccine batches and graphed.

 

 

The ‘green batches’ clustered around the green line have a moderate or moderately-high level of adverse events associated with them. …  it represents the batch that was the used the most in Denmark, with somewhat over 800,000 doses having been administered. These 800,000 doses are associated with around 2,000 suspected adverse events, which gives a reporting rate of one suspected adverse event per approximately 400 doses.

There are then the ‘blue batches’ clustered around the blue line, which are obviously associated with an extraordinarily high level of adverse events. As Dyker notes, no more than 80,000 doses of any of the blue batches were administered in Denmark …  these batches had as many as 8,000 suspected adverse events associated with them. Eight thousand out of 80,000 doses would give a reporting rate of one suspected adverse event for every 10 doses

Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around 30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.

As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”.

And malicious observers might be right.

 

 

These scientists are up in arms over the incomplete or absent quality control that would have discovered the placebo batches. Who is to say that wasn’t the point? The placebo batches events were allowed to slip out the door and into people’s arms. Every clinical trial needs a placebo group.

If the goal was to expose everyone to as much injury as possible, then the outrage might be justified, but a better question is why there were doses whose only advantage was the absence of a threat to human health.

And did the elites that lined up to get a shot, as an example on live TV, receive saline too? Plenty of folks speculated as much when reports of harm started piling up.

And what does this say about the intolerance of placebo-receiving experimental vaccine enthusiasts (who never knew and never will) that pushed for passports and restrictions on people who were no more vaccinated than they? Proud wearers of I’ve Been Vaccinated stickers that were unvaccinated and less likely to get infected or to spread the flu because of it. I find it all amusing. Saved by what may have been a deliberate circumstance.

There was no way to manufacture that much vaccine in the time provided. However, labeling stocked vials of placebo was likely within the realm of possibility. The absence of AEs in the control group meant millions would be “vaccinated” and experience no side effects because they got the placebo. The narrative mills would use that lack of harm as evidence against claims of vaccine injury in those who got either variation of the real thing and increased odds of damage or death.

Many people would get sick, some long-term, while others just dropped dead. A culling of the masses with another side-effect. Those who survived would need care, perhaps for years. Treatments, new vaccines. A veritable money-making machine for public health and big pharma.

Or maybe the Public Health Industrial Complex just wanted to play Russian Roulette with your parents, friends, wives, husbands, and children.

 

HT | DS

The post EU Scientists Verify COIVD Vax Placebo Batches Were Not a Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Granite Grok.

The polls continue to slide and show how little the American people think of the job performance of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. In fact, Harris dipped to the lowest approval rating of any Vice President in history.

Only 32% of Americans approve, while 49% disapprove, for a -17% spread. This rating is significant because of the age and condition of Joe Biden. Should the pair be re-elected, Joe Biden would be 82 when he takes the oath. She is literally a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Biden is not performing much better in the polls. His 41% approval is close to the lowest rating of his term. A staggering number is the 73% of those polled who do not want to see Joe Biden on the 2024 ballot. These deplorable numbers are for a President who claims to have one of the most successful ever. There is obviously a disconnect between his vision and American’s view.

The Democrats seem to be grooming potential replacements should they convince Joe and Kamala to step aside. This may be futile as Joe and Kamala must be pushed aside to make room for options. Joe’s ego and need for the money flow his career has supplied will not let him remove himself from the quest for reelection. He may also require the cover the office provides for him and his family. Kamala sees herself as a historical figure and wants nothing more than to be the first woman of color to be President. She does not want to earn the job. She feels entitled to it.

The Democrats have a weak bench. Their power people like Clinton, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren have been in Washington for so long that they no longer appeal to or identify with the younger voters. The Progressive fringe members of the Party are too far Left for most Americans and a general election. Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Joaquin Jeffries are sitting on the far end of the bench and are whispered about as potential candidates for 2024. None of these people have success stories on their resumes, and in the case of Newsom and Whitmer, their performances on the state level do not bear well on the national stage. None of these three would be a trade-up from Biden, and all would continue the movement toward a more Socialistic country.

So what are the options and game plan for the Democrats? The possibilities are few as Biden calls the shots as sitting President. He wants and needs the job. Impeachment is not a viable course. It would never get past the Democrat-controlled Senate, and nobody wants to see Harris elevated to the Presidency via Impeachment. The Biden Camp has shut down the Democrat Primary and Debate machines. He will go underground as he did in 2020 and let his spokespeople, surrogates, and the media campaign for him. This process is not how our President and supposed leader of the free world should be chosen. But that is what the American political game hated evolved to.

If the state of the union is not enough to convince voters that the Biden era is over, then the crimes of the family may take the wheels off the Biden Political Train.

The post Can There Be Worse Than Joe And Kamala appeared first on Granite Grok.

A car accident deposition is a vital part of the legal process for seeking compensation. The opposing attorney will ask questions to gather information and establish facts. Be prepared to answer these questions confidently. Here are some common questions.

Be honest and truthful in your answers. Don’t exaggerate or make up information. The opposing attorney will look for inconsistencies, so think carefully before answering. Be prepared for questions about the accident, your injuries, and damages.

1. Can you describe the events leading up to the accident?

• This question creates a timeline of events and provides your perspective on how the accident happened. Be sure to give a clear and concise account, emphasizing relevant details such as road conditions, traffic signals, and the actions of other drivers involved.

2. Were there any witnesses? If yes, can you give their names and contact information?

• The opposing attorney may inquire about witnesses to corroborate your version of events. Be prepared to provide the names and contact information of any individuals who witnessed the accident. It’s important to have obtained this information at the scene.

3. Were you obeying traffic laws at the time of the accident?

• This question is posed to determine if traffic violations contributed to the accident. Be honest about your adherence to traffic laws, including speed limits, signaling, and right-of-way rules.

4. Were you distracted in any way just before the accident?

• Distracted driving causes car accidents. Answer truthfully about distractions, as inconsistencies undermine credibility.

5. Did you seek medical attention after the accident? If yes, can you provide details about your injuries and treatment?

• The opposing lawyer will most likely ask about the extent of your injuries and the medical treatment you received. Be sure to recount your injuries accurately, the medical professionals you consulted, and the treatments or therapies you underwent.

6. Have you had any previous accidents or traffic violations?

• The attorney may ask about your driving history to determine if there is a pattern of negligent behavior. Disclose any previous accidents or traffic violations, as providing false information can severely affect your case.

7. Did you photograph or record the accident scene or your injuries?

• Your lawyer may inquire about any visual evidence you have from the accident scene. For instance, if you have photographs or videos, mention them and offer to provide copies if needed. Visual evidence can help support your case.

8. Did you discuss the accident or your injuries with anyone else after the incident?

• The attorney may want to know if you talked about the accident with others, such as friends, family, or on social media. Be truthful about any previous conversations or statements, as they might be used as evidence during the case.

Remember, these are general questions, and the specific questions asked during a car accident deposition can vary greatly depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is essential to consult with your attorney to prepare adequately and ensure you understand your rights and obligations during the deposition process.

In conclusion, a car accident deposition involves answering questions posed by the opposing attorney to gather information and establish the facts of the case. By familiarizing yourself with common questions and preparing truthful and concise responses, you can navigate the deposition process confidently and contribute to building a solid case. Remember to consult with your attorney for guidance tailored to your specific situation.

 

The post Top Questions in a Car Accident Deposition appeared first on Granite Grok.

Are you considering taking a professional certification exam but aren’t sure which one to choose? Look no further! In this blog post, we’ll be comparing two of the most popular and highly respected exams: CISSP and PMP. Both certifications are in high demand in their respective fields, but which one is harder? We’ll dive into the domains covered by each exam, the structure of the tests, and ultimately help you determine which exam is right for you. So buckle up and let’s get started on our journey to find out if CISSP really is harder than PMP!

Comparing the CISSP and PMP exams

CISSP and PMP are both professional certification exams that hold significant value in their respective fields. CISSP stands for Certified Information Systems Security Professional, while PMP stands for Project Management Professional. Despite having different names, they share a lot of similarities.

One similarity between the two exams is that they both require extensive preparation before taking them. Both tests have broad domains that cover various topics within their respective fields, so you must be well-versed in these areas to pass them.

Another similarity is the structure of the tests. Both exams consist of multiple-choice questions and follow specific guidelines set by their respective organizations. The CISSP exam has 250 questions with a time limit of six hours, while the PMP exam has 200 questions with a time limit of four hours.

However, there are also notable differences between these two exams. For example, the domains covered by each test differ significantly from one another. CISSP covers topics such as security and risk management, asset security, communication and network security among others; whereas PMP focuses on project initiation, planning execution monitoring control and closing stages.

Ultimately it comes down to which field you want to specialize in or advance your career in when choosing between CISSP vs PMP certifications – cybersecurity or project management respectively!

The domains covered by the CISSP and PMP exams

The CISSP and PMP exams are two of the most coveted certifications in their respective fields. The domains covered by these exams vary significantly, reflecting the different skill sets required for each certification.

The CISSP exam covers eight domains, including security and risk management, asset security, security engineering, communication and network security, identity and access management (IAM), security assessment and testing, software development security, and operations security. These domains reflect the comprehensive knowledge necessary to design, implement, manage and assess IT systems’ cybersecurity posture.

On the other hand, the PMP exam is focused on project management principles across five process groups: initiating a project; planning a project; executing a project; monitoring & controlling a project; closing a project. These process groups cover various tasks such as defining scope statements or creating budgets that are critical to successful completion of projects within time constraints.

While both exams require extensive preparation before taking them on successfully – they differ greatly in terms of what is being tested due to their diverse focus areas.

The structure of the CISSP and PMP exams

The structure of the CISSP and PMP exams is quite different from one another. The CISSP exam consists of 250 multiple-choice questions, which must be completed within six hours. These questions are based on ten domains that include security operations, asset security, and software development security.

On the other hand, the PMP exam comprises 200 questions that are a combination of both multiple-choice and scenario-based questions. These questions are divided into five sections – initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing – each covering various project management concepts.

Moreover, while both exams require candidates to have significant knowledge in their respective fields of study, they differ in terms of content coverage. While the CISSP exam focuses more on information security topics such as access control systems and cryptography techniques; the PMP exam covers everything related to project management like risk management strategies or cost-benefit analysis methods.

Understanding these differences between the structure of these two certification exams can help you determine which one will suit your career goals better.

The difficulty level of the CISSP and PMP exams

The CISSP and PMP exams are both challenging in their own ways. The difficulty level of these exams depends on a number of factors such as the individual’s knowledge, experience and preparation.

The CISSP exam covers eight domains ranging from Security Operations to Software Development Security. With 250 questions, it tests your knowledge across all domains with multiple-choice questions that require critical thinking skills.go to website:https://www.spotoclub.com

On the other hand, the PMP exam is focused on project management concepts such as planning, executing and closing projects. It consists of 200 multiple choice questions covering five process groups – Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring and Controlling, Closing.

Both exams require extensive study time along with practical experience in their respective fields. However, many professionals consider the CISSP exam to be more difficult due to its broader range of topics and depth of knowledge required for each domain.

Whether you find one harder than the other will depend on your background in either cybersecurity or project management. Both certifications hold great value for professionals looking to advance their careers within these industries.

Which exam is right for you?

Choosing the right exam is crucial for your career growth, and it all depends on your interests and goals. If you’re interested in project management, then PMP might be the right choice for you. On the other hand, if you want to pursue a career in cybersecurity, then CISSP could be more suitable.

It’s important to consider your current skills and experience before deciding which exam to take. If you already have experience in project management or IT security, then taking the corresponding certification can validate your knowledge and improve your employability.

Another factor to consider is how much time and effort you’re willing to commit. Both exams require significant preparation time, but CISSP may take longer due to its broader scope of topics. PMP focuses specifically on project management methodologies and practices.

Consider what certifications are valued in your industry or region of work. Some industries place greater value on one certification over another.

Choosing between CISSP vs PMP depends entirely on individual needs and aspirations; hence thorough research should precede any decision-making process concerning this matter.

Conclusion

After comparing the CISSP and PMP exams, it’s clear that both certifications require significant effort to attain. The domains covered by each exam are quite different, but they both demonstrate expertise in their respective fields.

The structure of the exams also differs significantly, with the CISSP requiring a deeper understanding of technical concepts while PMP focuses more on project management processes and methodologies.

Determining which certification is right for you will depend on your career goals and interests. If you have a passion for cybersecurity and want to showcase your knowledge and skills in this area, then pursuing the CISSP may be the best choice. On the other hand, if you’re interested in project management or are looking to advance your career as a project manager, then PMP could be an excellent option.

In any case, both certifications are highly respected by employers worldwide and can help open doors to new opportunities. So whichever path you choose to pursue – whether it’s CISSP or PMP – remember that hard work pays off in achieving success!

The post Is CISSP Harder Than PMP? appeared first on Granite Grok.

We Americans are a unique nation in many delightful ways (forgetting how hard Progressives want us to be like other nations) thanks to our Founding Fathers’ political and historical genius. That sociological masterpiece we call the US Constitution.

That genius was in their foundational notion that Power is sought by all the wrong people and that they had to design their framework to isolate that urge to make it as difficult as possible to protect Society against the Government, the States against the Federal Government, and the Branches of the Federal Government from each other.

In the end, however, it comes down not to Government or Society but to us. What have we, individual Americans, done to protect that document by not allowing those that crave Power to aggregate and abuse it?  Lately, I don’t think we’ve done much. 74% of us believe that the county is not on the right path. But it is a poll question that only asks that – not WHICH WAY or in which direction; are we giving up too much Freedom, or are we not giving the Government enough Power?

In Russia, we just saw an abortive coup. The Wagner mercenary army took over Russian army positions and leverage points and started to march to Moscow. Until it got aborted, and I doubt that few people, even in Russia, have a complete idea of what happened when the best army in Russia (a private mercenary force) stood down. What I do know is that The Truth About Guns had a piece that my bingo card would never have EVAH had.

Seriously, would any of us in the Freedom camp have thought this would happen? Emphasis mine, reformatted:

Russians Suddenly Discover the Value of an Armed Populace

Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, a Russian businessman who has sought to unite groups opposing Putin, called on Russians opposed to the regime to arm themselves. Khodorkovsky wrote on his Telegram channel:

“Now we see that only armed people can resist the dictatorship,” “Now there is a small window of opportunity when there is chaos on the streets and the security forces are not in control of the situation.”

He said the dramatic standoff would likely result in further repression:

“If you see the strength in yourself in the future to become those armed people who will oppose Putin or Prigozhin, then it’s time to arm yourself,” he said. “Prigozhin is not our friend and not even our ally. He is a bandit and a war criminal. But his rebellion is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and there won’t be another like it for a long time.”

Who knew? Who knew that even people who have lived under totalitarian governments for over a hundred years would understand that the basis of our Second Amendment might be their source of freedom? The ability to defend themselves. Sure, at a high cost, most likely, and as we saw in our Revolution, few participated. Would Khodorkovsky find like-minded people?

From the little I know, the phrase is “If you are going to kill the King, KILL THE KING!”. And in this case, he’s staring at TWO Kings – mostly? Sorta? Prigozhin lit out to Belarus with no one knowing what the terms are (and what little we do know seems to be changing quickly).

Our Rights stem from God and are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

Sidenote: with fewer and fewer Americans believing in God, are WE in trouble soon when we reach that tipping point that the Progressives are aching for in their “There is no God – WE are our own gods” and revoke it?

Russians have no such right in theirs. However, they understand that they need one.

Even if this coup goes away, the idea won’t.  What will happen then?

 

The post There’s A Reason for Our 2nd Amendment and Now the Russians Understand appeared first on Granite Grok.

Sports can be divisive. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Michigan vs. Ohio State. El Salvador vs. Honduras. What? Yup. These two countries went to war in 1969 after El Salvador beat Honduras 3-2 in a FIFA World Cup (soccer) qualifier.

Then there was that preseason NFL game in San Francisco. After the 49ers hosted the Oakland Raiders, football “fans” got into some parking lot fights, and several people were shot.

But sports can also bring folks together. Like when our USA Olympic ice hockey team beat the Soviets in 1980. That “Miracle on Ice” truly united Americans—from Maine to California to maybe even Hawaii!

A local example of sports bringing people together occurred on June 26 when Loudon Country Club hosted the Legislative Golf Classic. This “scramble” event brought together Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, vegetarians, males, females, friends, relatives, lobbyists, good golfers, bad golfers, young golfers, and older golfers. One participant even celebrated his 90th birthday at LCC.

The golf event was a charity fund-raiser for Manchester’s Liberty House, which supports homeless and transitioning military veterans. I was happy to be on the event planning team as well as on a golf team—the Legislative Beer Caucus Founders.

As a former sports management professor, I know there are many crucial parts to these fundraisers. Numerous people must tend to many aspects, including player/sponsor solicitations, publicity, registrations, goodie bags, signage, raffles, and contest monitoring. Someone must watch the Hole-in-One competition to document a golfer getting an ace worth $20,000. (Before buying clubhouse drinks for all.) And someone must supervise the all-important traveling beer cart and the all-important Beer Cart Girl.

(One may wonder why there are never any Beer Cart Guys. And one can probably figure out why.)

Fortunately, LCC had the extremely capable Alina in charge of the extremely important traveling beer cart.

But there is one variable that even the best planners in the golf world struggle with.

The weather.

Ten days out, I woke up, and the first thing I did was check the 10-day forecast. There was a 90% chance of precipitation on June 26. A couple of days later an 80% chance. A couple of days later, there was a projected 100% chance of precipitation. My heart sank. It rained on a different golf scramble at LCC on June 24. The two-day forecast called for more rain on June 26.

Even the best golf planners can’t control the weather. Or can they?

I recalled that General George Patton summoned a chaplain during the darkest days of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 and ordered him to come up with a prayer that would bring good weather for air support. Father James O’Neill was the chaplain who answered the call, and he wrote a beautifully solemn entreaty asking the Almighty to “restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend.”

The skies cleared, and the battle was won.

So, a la Father O’Neill, I offered up a weather prayer. I acknowledged that there were folks facing more dire situations than our scramble golfers. Certainly, the suffering people in Ukraine rated more divine intervention than our legislative linksters. But we wanted to bring folks of different political persuasions together to raise money for the homeless! I ultimately left things in the hands of the Great Greenskeeper in the Sky.

I awoke early on June 26 and looked out the window. It was cloudy but dry. And it stayed dry through the morning and into the afternoon as Republicans and Democrats laughed it up, hitting golf balls up and down the hills of Loudon Country Club.

My foursome encountered the extremely capable Alina and the extremely important traveling beer cart at least four times in five hours. And we all hit at least a few good shots—such fun.

And it stayed dry for the post-golf social, where Democrats and Republicans literally and figuratively embraced and laughed it up. We’d raised around $20,000—along with a few libations. After the final award was given, the legislative linksters headed for their cars when suddenly the heavens burst forth with heavy rain.

Perfect timing.

Somehow, I think Father O’Neill was watching from somewhere.

#####

State Rep. Mike Moffett of Loudon chairs the House Committee on State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs.

The post Legislative Golf, George Patton, and Good Weather appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Florida governor running for president likes to tout how Florida passed “constitutional carry” legislation this year – under his watch. But a close examination of House Bill 543, and related laws that were unchanged, reveals that “constitutional carry” is illusory at best.

Open carry of firearms remains prohibited in Florida and constitutes a crime called “brandishing.”

You may conceal carry in Florida under the DeSantis “constitutional carry” law without obtaining a government permit or license if you are not a prohibited person. But the law did not change the fact that firearms are still not permitted to be carried, even with a permit, in any of the 15 places outlined in Florida Statute §790.06(12)(a), including most bars and lounges, any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any polling place; and any college or university facility (with only a few limited exceptions).

You can call it an expanded carry law, but it is not constitutional carry by even the broadest definitions.

Open carry (i.e. carrying on one’s person a firearm entirely or partially visible) without the necessity of obtaining a government issue permit or license has been the law of New Hampshire for many decades.

And while before February of 2017, carrying concealed in public required obtaining a pistol permit from the government in a relatively painless process; that changed dramatically on February 22, 2017, when the NH Governor signed a bill into law making New Hampshire the 11th state to have “constitutional carry” as a matter of law.

New Hampshire’s constitutional carry law is clean, pure, and straightforward. Unless a person is prohibited from carrying or possessing a firearm under state or federal law, they may carry a concealed firearm in nearly all public places without obtaining a government permit or license. You may not have a firearm, either openly or concealed, in a courthouse or in the sterile areas of an airport. And federal law imposes some restrictions on places where firearms are not permitted, such as post offices and a few other locations.

It’s not true constitutional carry, as in anywhere you have a right to be. Still, the bottom line is that New Hampshire has a more bona fide constitutional carry, while constitutional carry in Florida is a step in the right direction, but with a long way to go.

The post Florida’s Phony Constitutional Carry Law appeared first on Granite Grok.

I was watching Tucker on Twitter episode six, and he featured a story about an insufferable prick named Dr. Peter Hoetez. You’ve likely heard of him. Twitter users have amassed millions for his favorite charity if he will debate Robert Kennedy Jr. on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

The “Hoe” still refuses. It is beneath him. “One typically doesn’t debate science,” Hotez said.

The science of COVID, as with the Climate, is not open to debate. There is a revered text, psalms refigured to music, and a series of repetitious actions (kneel, sit, stand, and genuflect). These are their stations of the cross; masks, distancing, and mRNA vaccines that – like the CDC’s hospital protocols – are divine inventions of man and proof of Scientism’s will on earth.

Put another way; there is no second opinion. You can’t have one, get one, or believe one if it is not identical to the first opinion—another sheep in the heard or voice in the choir. You can’t ask another nurse, internist, or surgeon if they have thoughts outside the approved narrative. Excommunication awaits those deviating from the “faith.”

No Modern Martin Luther, No Galileo

Martin Luther is revered as a true member of the resistance to the tyranny of his time, but anyone who attempts to nail lists on the CDC’s “church” door shall be canceled, “losing their jobs, their professional standing, their health, friends and family, even their children,” to quote Transcriber B. Denied a voice for practicing what can only be called the 21st-century equivalent of witchcraft—a theory of motion outside the approved dogma of the day that challenges the true COVIDISM.

Whatever the matter, the response to such heresy is medieval. Or, perhaps a better comparison might be Colonial Salem, Feb 1692 – May 1693—another “notorious case of mass hysteria.” Except that the modern one has taken an interesting turn. The 21st-century Court of Oyer and Terminer has released to the public reams of modern digital scrolls outlining how, in detail, the anti-science deniers were correct. Plain as day, in black and white.

From the CDC, FDA, and public health bureaucrats. It is not a secret anymore. There was more than one person behind the curtain hiding important details, but expert pricks like Dr. Peter Hoetez continue to spew that which the divine source itself has been forced to admit were either half-truths or lies. You can also find it in ads funded by the State of New Hampshire on Gas Station TV. Pay too much for gas and get trolled by the NHDHHS. Get the latest COVID vaccine!

Sure, the suppressed science has been forced out of the dark by court order, but that does not mean that these Pharisees of public health need to read them out loud—quite the opposite. They continue to repeat their lies, and when challenged, they call you liars, frauds, racists, and murderers. Your choice is still their choice or their choice, despite your having a right to a second opinion. Even the website patient advocate.org assures you of the right to a second opinion, a site that appears to be another victim of COVID Cash capture.

It’s tragic.

And while there continue to be acknowledgments that the COVID pandemic could have been handled differently, very little of that finds its way out of the mouths of many doctors, researchers, and scientists who are supposed to question everything. Who, instead, refuse to be challenged because to do so could give credibility to other arguments—the opposite of science.

 

 

Ep. 6 Bobby Kennedy is winning pic.twitter.com/jW51PYahLV

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 22, 2023

..

The post You Are No Longer Entitled to a “Second Opinion”? appeared first on Granite Grok.

So, what happened during the Conway Public Library Drag Queen show held last Friday?  My contact couldn’t make it inside the library to watch the proceedings because of “HATERS!!!” named Director David Smolen and White Mountains Pride Christopher Bellis. Why do I call them haters?

Because the advance notice said:

By increasing the visibility of materials and services for everyone in our community, we are establishing the library as a welcoming and inclusive center with free access to all ideas, without censorship or discrimination. By providing library users with the freedom to explore an array of viewpoints, we help them develop them into thoughtful citizens.

And as we saw in the previous post, for all of their word salads about equality, equity, inclusiveness, and welcoming, they are none of that. Plain frauds, these ones.  The verbiage says one thing but as you saw in the video, it only goes just so far. The inclusiveness and the “welcomingness” only last until “The Narrative” is endangered as we saw how they “developed” an antipathy to those that possess other “ideas“.

Is “hypocritical haters” a more descriptive term?

But someone did get in and let slip what happened. And why would we all be surprised:

 

 

Costumes. Makeup.

This was reported as good as in “Look – kids having fun!” Groomers going, “Heh!  Costumes? Makeup?  Just like us, just like us.”

Did all of the parents catch the sub-messaging by “Reverend Yolanda” in “preaching to his new choir” in introducing a lifestyle/worldview/morality” that gets passed off as “reading children”?  That’s right, him. Steve shared a good write-up on this pervert (all dolled up as an “artiste”); or, seeing that he calls himself a “Reverend,” is calling him a “missionary” a more descriptive term?

Roger Anthony Mapes 4 (Rev. Yolanda) was born in 1956 in the city of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He was raised as a Methodist, and then in 1974, he became an evangelical “Jesus Freak” and moved to a commune called Jesus Manor. He ended up leaving the faith to pursue a sinful homosexual relationship.

Mapes eventually went to theater school and moved to New York City in the early 90s, where he met a group called the Radical Faeries ; Mapes moved into a commune with them in 1993 in Vermont. The Radical Faeries are a worldwide network and counter-cultural movement seeking to redefine “queer consciousness” through “secular spirituality.” The Radical Faeries reject the classical understanding of men and women and the heterosexual relationship. They instead seek to destroy what they see as “hetero-imitation” by grooming children from an early age. They were born during the Sexual Revolution  and grew rapidly under the supervision of communist Harry Hay, Don Kilhefner, and Mitchell Walker.

Adopting what totalitarian states have said throughout history, “We don’t need you – we’re taking your children”.

I have no idea what books were actually read on Friday, but one of Conway Public Library’s pages had a list:

1. Red, A Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall
2. Neither by Airlie Anderson
3. Worm Loves Worm by J.J. Austrian
4. Introducing Teddy by Jessica Walton
5. Jacob’s New Dress by Sarah and Ian Hoffman
6. Teddy’s Favorite Toy by Christian Trimmer
7. Isabella, Star of the Story by Jennifer Fosberry
8. Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress by Christine Baldacchino
9. I Like Myself by Karen Beaumont
10. 10,000 Dresses by Marcus Ewert

I still have more, so we’ll do another iteration tomorrow. However, I will leave you with these from the “other side”: Critical Race Theory aimed at toddlers and in making recent parents guilty.

Really, we are supposed to listen to a Library that thinks it’s our Mommy and Daddy?

 

 

The post So About that Drag Queen at the Conway Public Library Last Friday…Part 2.1 (The Unsavory Bits) appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Somebody is lying…  Either Merrick Garland has lied under oath to the Congress, or David Weiss lied to the IRS agents.”  Fox News legal analyst Sol Wisenberg.

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

“Merrick Garland has testified that David Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware investigating Biden, had complete authority, more authority than even a special counsel did to do anything he wanted.” Wisenberg  said to Laura Ingraham

It’s pretty simple. If Garland, as he claims. gave Weiss “complete authority” to bring a case against Hunter and “more authority” than even a Special Counsel, where is the written proof? Where is the letter from the AG designating Weiss as a special attorney under 28 USC 515(a)?

— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023

Weiss “told at least six witnesses last year that he lacked authority to charge the first son outside Delaware and was denied special counsel status.” whistleblower IRS supervisory special agent Gary Shapley.

Two simple questions for Weiss: 1. When the DC and CDCAL USATTYs denied your requests to bring charges in their respective districts, who did you go to within DOJ to ask for Special Counsel status? If not the AG, why didn’t you go to him directly after your request was denied?

— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023

Finally, did you lie to the IRS Special Agents when you told them on 10-7-22 that you were NOT the ultimate decision-maker? Did you lie when you told them you had been denied Special Counsel status?

— Sol Wisenberg (@WisenbergSol) June 27, 2023

It appears simple enough.  Garland is the nation’s attorney general, and Weiss is the Delaware-based federal prosecutor who years ago was tasked with investigating Hunter Biden.  And it seems to be a discrepancy that’s easy to sort out.  Just bring them both before Congress… again.  Ask them some pointed and specific questions.  Then begin impeachment proceedings against the guy whose story doesn’t add up.

Ah ha, we’ve found the missing part of the American government today… accountability.  Would you bet a cup of coffee on whether it happens?

The post Somebody’s Lying appeared first on Granite Grok.

Mikey Graham’s choice of words says much, much more about Mikey Graham than the person he is trying to demean and discredit. The proper description would be Sun-King Sununu’s illegal, unconstitutional, un-American actions repudiated by the court.

Instead, Mikey continues to LIE about the COVID vaccines that are NOT a vaccine and that Big Pharma always knew were NOT a vaccine.

Shame on Mikey Graham, and shame on anyone who still believes that Mikey and his ilk are “on our side.” He/they are NOT. They are grifters who – if Trump is the nominee – will support Biden, just as they supported Biden in 2020. AND they still have not apologized for … nor even acknowledged … that virtually all they said and did about COVID was not only not based on science, but egregiously wrong (indeed, in some cases EVIL)  in terms of health, in terms of the economy and the rule of law. SHAME.

 

The post Hey Mikey … It’s Not A Vaccine … Stop Being A Shill For Big Pharma appeared first on Granite Grok.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that college admissions policies based on race are a no-go.  The cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Harvard, for under-enrolling qualified Asian applicants while UNC was accused of failing to achieve diversity by other means.

Both schools take public money and must change their Admissions programs as a result of the decision.

 

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the six-justice majority.

However, universities may still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. Roberts clarified that this does not mean universities can simply establish through application essays or other means the regime declared unlawful by the Court. It means, explained Roberts, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

Is it just me, or did the Court leave a backdoor for colleges and Universities to continue the practice of racist-based admissions?

 

The post Breaking: SCOTUS Strikes Down Affirmative Action Admission Policies appeared first on Granite Grok.

It all started in 2015, and it has taken almost eight years for Saifullah Khan, a former Yale student and an Afghan refugee whose family fled the Taliban, to see a glimmer of hope for justice.

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

This past week, on the anniversary of the introduction of the 1972 introduction of Title IX, the Connecticut Supreme Court published a ruling against Yale University and a Jane Doe who had claimed immunity in a defamation suit brought by Saifullah Khan following a Title IX sexual assault disciplinary procedure which Yale claimed was “quasi-judicial”: Jane Doe had claimed Saifullah Khan raped her and Yale took her at her word and sided with her against Khan without calling witnesses he had put forward in his defense of the accusations.

CT Supreme Court: “Statements made in sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings that are offered and accepted without adequate procedural safeguards carry too great a risk of unfair or unreliable outcomes.”
Yale accuser not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. pic.twitter.com/wcnVXNRGMX

— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) June 23, 2023

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the Title IX disciplinary procedure which caused Saifullah Khan to be deprived of his Yale education was not “quasi-judicial” because it failed to offer Khan his due process rights which included, inter alia, the ability to cross-examine his accuser — something he had been granted in a criminal sexual assault trial stemming from allegations by the same Jane Doe. Khan was acquitted of all charges by a criminal jury, but Yale held its own standards, which it claimed were “quasi-judicial” and yet had no legal standing.

Fifteen women’s and victim’s rights non-profits, which included Legal Momentum, the National Women’s Law Center, Futures without Violence, the National Crime Victims’ Law Institute, Know Your IX, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, wrote an amicus brief in support of Jane Doe’s immunity for making false statements.

Khan-v-Yale-et-al-amicus-brief-AS-FILED-6.17.22

The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected their amicus brief. The full list of organizations that supported Jane Doe and her false accusations is here:

• Chicago alliance against sexual exploitation
• Connecticut coalition against domestic violence
• Fierberg national law group
• Futures without violence
• Jewish women international
• Know your ix
• Legal Momentum
• National Alliance to end sexual violence
• National coalition against domestic violence
• National crime victim law institute
• National Network for victim recovery of DC
• National Network to end domestic violence
• National Women’s law center
• Sanctuary for Families
• Women’s Law Project

Several of these organizations had also supported Amber Heard, who was successfully sued by Johnny Depp for defamation in a civil suit in 2022. Amber Heard claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse and sexual violence in an Op-Ed written for her by the ACLU and published in the Washington Post in December 2018.

The ACLU then partnered with one of the organizations included in the list above — Know Your IX — to sue Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. They didn’t think the due process in sexual assault cases on campus was appropriate. They lost the case, but campuses still didn’t fully embrace her new standards requiring due process. Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign promised to revert to the 2011 unregulated standards. He believes those who believe in due process are like “Nazis marching on Charlottesville.”

These women’s and victims’ rights organizations have been fast and loose with their language — so much so that they had to refile their amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court for Jane Doe in Khan v Yale because their first one stated that Khan “raped” Jane Doe.

Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that amicus brief outright since Khan had been acquitted of all charges, including rape, in a criminal trial. Facts haven’t mattered to these groups, and they toss the word “rape” around like cotton candy in Disneyland. One of the reasons they toss it around is because it is a word that draws sensationalist attention for # engagement which is always good for major brand advertisers/sponsors tied to them, such as L’Oreal (and its multiple global brands under it).

Now that Yale is facing a $110 million defamation suit and so is Jane Doe, perhaps these organizations will think before they support, encourage, or recruit the next Jane Doe or Amber Heard for their lucrative false accusation industry. They harm women’s credibility and agency. They do not help it.

Cancel culture on college campuses and in high schools and the denial of due process for Saifullah Khan at Yale are all connected, as is the censorship of media and social media and the use of Government-backed propaganda to create fake rape narratives (harming many real victims of sexual assault in the process).

The University of New Hampshire should be held accountable because it all started there:

Cancel culture on campus and Saifullah’s deprivation of his civil rights would not have happened if Vice President Joe Biden had not introduced an unregulated federal directive “Dear Colleague” Title IX letter at the University of New Hampshire on April 4, 2011.

This unregulated directive spawned Kangaroo Courts. “Ambassadors” and “influencers” (posing as journalists) were engaged by the White House & non-profit affiliates to promote propaganda and silence dissenters. The PR money was flowing to journalists at every major publication: New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Teen Vogue, Glamour Magazine, The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily Mail, BuzzFeed, and The Daily Beast, to name a few. NBC, CBS, and CNN especially were also partnered to promote the “rape culture” narrative. It was used to get women voters engaged and to the polls (for female Democrat candidates only, however).

UNH was providing guidelines to the White House that made preposterous biased assumptions using faulty statistics and propaganda.

The University of New Hampshire was in a strategic partnership with the White House “Not Alone” task force headed by Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s Chief of Staff. But also involved were the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women, and the Department of Defense. All of whom have been silent on Larry Nassar, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Hunter Biden.

The money flowed from the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women and others to non-profits working with political PR firms who, in turn, would help get journalists to place sensationalist and untrue tales of rape on campus in magazines and newspapers. The UN was part of it as well — Emma Watson was recruited as the ambassador to influence “the Harry Potter” generation.

It was nothing short of a profiteering and racketeering industry that boosted the ratings of young female Ivy League graduates such as Alexandra Brodsky with political or book publishing goals in their future.

Hopefully, with Saifullah Khan’s historic win in the Connecticut Supreme Court, victims’ rights activists who promote “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training or who drink Brett Sokolow’s cool-aid will think twice before continuing with this or with the “Believe women” false accusation industry.

Yale and Jane Doe are facing a defamation suit in which Saifullah Khan is seeking $110 million for being labeled a rapist and denied the tools with which to defend himself.

Khan’s attorney Norm Pattis criticized Yale’s methods in a January 2019 blog post.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the process Yale used to engage in its fact-finding was fatally flawed,” Pattis said in the post.

The University of New Hampshire’s Prevention Innovation Research Center was recognized for entrepreneurship with the creation of “Soteria Solutions” to teach “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training. Lyn Schollett, JD of the NHCADSV, is on the board.

“Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training were heralded by the NHCADSV at Phillips Exeter Academy and St Paul’s School in New Hampshire.

Vanity Fair highlighted the failures of “Bystander” training in “Mr. Weber’s Confession.” The genius of the training -for which UNH received millions in federal grants to create — led to a retired school teacher being framed for a sexual assault that his “victim” said never happened.

For all the federal grants the University of New Hampshire has received to study sexual, domestic violence, and child abuse, it can’t even address problems of such on the home front both on its own campus and in its State Youth Detention Center.

It’s time the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice (who funded UNH’s flawed research and training), Department of Education, and Department of Defense (with whom RAINN is tied) take a hard look at the violations of constitutional rights that the University of New Hampshire in partnership with the Obama White House introduced on April 4, 2011, and which were used to influence not only campus disciplinary procedures but also police criminal procedures.

It’s also time for the New Hampshire Bar to question the New Hampshire Criminal Courts and Police and ask why it was ever appropriate for them to take instruction from Laura L Dunn, Joe Biden’s VIP guest to the launch of “Dear Colleague” in 2011 and a representative for the White House “Not Alone” task force.

Laura L Dunn instructed Concord Police at UNH, and Concord Police referred Chessy Prout (according to Chessy Prout’s “memoir” with an introduction by Congresswoman Ann Kuster — “I Have The Right To” and promoted by Dan Hill of hillimpact.com boasting his work in securing over $21 billion in Government contracts for his clients) — Owen Labrie’s accuser to Laura Dunn in Spring 2015, 5 months before his high profile criminal sexual assault trial.

Unlike Saifullah Khan’s journey through the sexual assault sham, there was no Title IX investigation to put in abeyance while the criminal procedure played out in Owen Labrie’s case, which started one year earlier than Khan’s in 2014:

Concord Police had told St Paul’s School to stay out of it, to not let Owen Labrie know he was being investigated. According to the trial transcript, they advised his mother and him that there was no need for him to have an attorney present while they questioned him. But they had already recommended Laura L Dunn of the White House “Not Alone” task force and affiliated non-profit SurvJustice to Chessy Prout before they even contacted Owen Labrie in June 2014. They’d taken their instruction from Laura L Dunn, a lackey for Vice President Joe Biden, and she brought with her media, journalists, and an entourage of victims advocates and civil attorneys ready to go after St Paul’s School’s money off the back of the trial.

I was so, so lucky that the detective who interviewed me while I was laying in a hospital bed had just gotten back from a conference where they had worked on how to talk to and interview survivors of sexual assault. That was pretty serendipitous. She connected us with a wonderful attorney and advocate named Laura Dunn, who, when the trial came around, basically held my hand.

(It should be noted that on her way to the hospital, Chessy Prout texted Owen Labrie to say that things were getting out of hand. She’d told her sister that she never said she’d been raped, and the police wrote that statement down. But the police detective told her not to worry about the details and to not discuss anything with anyone, including her mother, for the “integrity” of the investigation. There was none. The police detective lied on a sworn affidavit about the report from the SANE nurse and used that to get an arrest warrant for computer communications which she then selectively redacted and tampered with. Where did she learn all of this?)

Laura L Dunn has been extremely vocal about her belief that due process is not appropriate in campus sexual assault cases. So what was she doing spreading this belief to police and prosecutors as well for criminal procedures?

Laura L Dunn was promoting her own business as an ambulance-chasing attorney for “victims,” and she needed to shop for them, train them and train police & prosecutors for her own self-advancement, which went hand in hand with the victim’s rights groups who could also profiteer from this business. She publicly stated that she wanted to be “Gloria Allred big.”

“I’m always mad that we’re not bigger,” said Dunn, matter-of-factly. “I want to be Gloria Allred big. People know if your civil rights get violated, you go to the ACLU. I want people to know if you get raped, you go to SurvJustice.”

And she had Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama, his chief of staff Valerie Jarrett, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (Catherine Lhamon), and the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (Lynn Rosenthal) behind her as well as her mentor: S. Daniel Carter.

Nobody cared that Laura L Dunn had lied about her own alleged sexual assault on NPR in 2010, which they finally corrected five years later in 2015.

On the board of SurvJustice with Laura L Dunn was Wagatwe Wanjuki — a social media influencer — and Meg Garvin of the National Crime Victims Law Institute, which featured Dunn as a “partner spotlight” in November 2014 — the same month she promoted the false Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” story which led to the defamation suit Eramo v Rolling Stone (featuring Dunn in Exhibit 15b).

New Hampshire (“First in the Nation,” “Live Free or Die”) police and prosecutors swallowed Laura L Dunn’s instruction hook, line, and sinker to undermine their own criminal trial procedures. There was a ton of money on offer to them for doing so. The coffers filled quickly: Merrimack County Attorney (later US Attorney for New Hampshire and now Federal Prosecutor Scott Murray) called New Hampshire v Owen Labrie “A Victory for Victim’s Rights.” He was awarded “Prosecutor of the Year.” The National Crime Victim’s Law Institute who supported the false accuser Jane Doe in the amicus brief against Saifullah Khan and rewarded Concord Police Detective Julie Curtin in the investigation of Owen Labrie for “justice for the victim.” The judge, Larry Smukler, also pronounced “justice for the victim”. He’d decided to ignore prosecutor and police misconduct which were blatantly evident in the trial transcript.

We should not have any public funds going towards flawed sexually biased programs at the University of New Hampshire or elsewhere, which are then used to target, frame, profiteer, and racketeer and deny the assumption of innocence, a constitutional right.

Sharyn Potter, Executive Director of UNH Prevention Innovation Research Center, doesn’t hide her gender bias: She lists herself as a “Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies University of New Hampshire.”

Title IX’s language below is crystal clear against such bias. What were the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women & Department of Education, White House “Not Alone” task force thinking, and why isn’t there a Senate inquiry into this?

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

| Claire Best

The post False Rape Accusers Beware: Defamation Suit Against Jane DOE & Yale University Can Proceed appeared first on Granite Grok.

Before you squawk, I’ve advocated for ending the state’s gasoline tax. Gone. I got pushback from Libertarians and Republicans, but I’m still a fan of the idea. Having said that, there is a growing siren song in some states for mileage taxes.

If you like to rob people, it is a great idea: taxes, mileage taxes, it’s all theft.

The vehicle mileage tax is a response to the Democrat idea that we should all be driving EVs or not driving at all. Democrats also like to hike fuel taxes ‘cuz reasons, but the growing fleet of climate-killing, extra-heavy-road-wearing EVs don’t pay it. The idea is to shift to a per-mile tax that accurately represents wear and use for infrastructure upkeep.

If that’s where we are headed, I have some conditions. Much like my belief that EV users should only be able to charge their vehicles with renewable power, only EVs should have to pay the mileage tax. This is not unreasonable because no one is ever going to end the motor fuel taxes, not even Republicans and Libertarians.

Related: Anyone Who Supports Net-Zero Should Be Required to Address These Concerns (And Not Just Because They Can’t)

So have at it. Pass a mileage TAX on EVs. They weigh a lot more and cause a lot more road wear. While you’re at it, might I suggest a separate carbon tax paid annually when drivers register their vehicles to cover the end-of-life cost to manage the waste-stream burden of a vehicle sized used up lithium pack? Aside from the front-end carbon footprint of mining, milling, moving, and manufacturing costs (plus local environmental damage), what to do with the discarded heart of your EV corpse represents a significant ecological burden/hazard.

Wait. We also need “risk of EV fire” fees. When those things burn, Fire Departments have no easy way to extinguish them. You’ve more or less banned the foam they used to use, so we’re left with containment while the EV emits insane amounts of crap into the air from burning plastic, fabric, electronics, metal, and – oh yeah, the rare earth metals melting down and exhausting into the biosphere from the battery pack.

Maybe another fee for emissions insurance that can launder money through carbon-offset schemes that promise to plant trees along the equator, by which they mean “might cut fewer of them down.”

While we continue to ignore or avoid similar environmental threats created by solar panels, if you can get ahead of this now, you can have a healthy set aside to rob blindly to balance other irresponsible acts of budget abuse while pretending you planned ahead.

 

 

The post For Those Pushing a State Vehicle Mileage Tax, I’ve got Some Thoughts … appeared first on Granite Grok.

You can hear the whistles blowing, and the trap around the Biden Cartel is closing because FOX News is no longer the only voice in the choir singing about the sins of the Biden Family.

After years of defending or ignoring the apparent bribery and extortion cases involving the Bidens, the tone and talking points are changing. They are going to force each other to stay focused. The MSM does nothing individually. It is all in or out, and today, they are in.

The temperature has risen in the White House Briefing Room. This past week, when usually the only news team pressing Karine Jean-Pierre was FOX, numerous reporters were pressing KJP. Karine is doing a terrible job of deflecting questions about the ties and crimes of Joe and Hunter. She continues to claim that her colleagues have already addressed the question. The reality is that all spokespeople for the White House are deflecting. The most transparent White House has pulled the shades down, which is not a good look in the dark.

The mistruths(lies) that come out of this White House are infinite. Whether it is misrepresenting the facts about the economy, inflating the production and value of Kamala Harris, or outright lying about the President’s knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings, there is no credibility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a severe problem. I want to believe that we had no part in the attempted coup of Vladimir Putin, but when Biden addresses the country, urging us to believe this was an internal Russian issue, we cannot believe him. That is unfortunate.

Six IRS whistleblowers have come forward to give their version of the facts. The FBI and Justice Department are hard-pressed to dispel the stories. These six individuals are pressured to tell the truth or face the consequences of the law. They have all been consistent, making it more difficult for the government to shoot holes in their testimony. This situation poses a tremendous problem for the Bidens. The stories of the IRS slow-rolling the investigation, not applying the full impact of the law, and cutting deals that never would be available to anyone not named Biden.

In addition to the whistleblowers, Comer, Jordan, and Grassley are heading up three investigations on separate committees. All have indicated and promised damaging testimony that will connect the money with the Bidens. These investigations’ outcome must be Joe Biden receiving money and not just a tax evasion violation. The Republicans, the press corp, and the mainstream media are the three-headed monster that has to be giving the Bidens nightmares and JKP more reasons not to answer questions.

 

The post Hey Joe, Those Whistles Blowing Are Not An Amtrak appeared first on Granite Grok.