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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

Just what IS going on in Londonderry?

 

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

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

Quick Takes – Hat Trick – Granite Grok

Quick Takes – Hat Trick – Granite Grok

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

 

DEPOPULATION

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

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

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

Dark Thoughts in the Small Hours – Granite Grok

Borrowing from a Dog Food Ad – Urban Scoop

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

 

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

 

Sterilization of the future.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

She got comments supporting her.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Just look at the whole Covid crisis.

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, from True North Reports.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Survival Sunday – Sunday PREP Edition – Granite Grok

Survival Sunday – Thursday SITREP Edition – Granite Grok

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Pick of the post:

 

 

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

 

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

 

Palate cleansers:

 

—

—

The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

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

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

 

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

 

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

Diplomacy is not an option.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how freedom rises or falls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

John Whitehead | The Tenth Amendment Center

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Political Science Books of All Time: Where to Start  

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

2. “The Republic” by Plato

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

3. “The Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli

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

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

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

5.”Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville

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

6. “Politics” by Aristotle

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

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

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

8. “The Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes

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

9. “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill

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

10. “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt

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

11. “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek

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

12. “Second Treatise of Government” by John Locke

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

Yes, to Political Science Books!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(H/T: The Blaze)

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

The Kansas Legislature has overridden the governor’s veto to pass the Women’s Bill of Rights (SB 180), the first law in the country that defines gender in state law as a person’s biological sex at birth.

 

Under it, a female is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova.” A male is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

It also defines gender words calling for “woman” and “girl” to be used to refer to human females and “man” and “boy” to refer to human males. It defines “mother” as a parent of the female sex and “father” as a parent of the male sex. …

The national women’s rights organization, which helped craft the legislation, wrote on its website, “This bill takes procedural steps to write into law common sense definitions that ensure the meaning of words like ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ aren’t corrupted by unelected bureaucrats intent on pushing gender ideology.”

 

The usual suspects are outraged, but they already were so same spectrum, different day. But that’s the Be You crowd—a constant contradiction. You can be you if it aligns with their idea of who you should be. If you happen to have any objection to the gender-bender-blender- agend-er, they try to isolate you until being you means being the way they expect you to be. It’s classical Marxism with a twist. It used to be that you could suffer in silence. Just keep your head down and any objection to yourself. These days silence is violence, so you can’t just quietly be you; you have to be them vocally.

Two words. F*** Off!

Back in the Real World

Adults in penguin suits who want to be referred to as ocelots are welcome to ask, but no one should be compelled to participate in anyone else’s fantasy against their will. The fact that this appears impossible means state and local governments need a law that defines what the words male, female, man, woman, and mother and father mean. A leap that any rational, intelligent culture (say, from some other world) would find fascinating and absurd. Why did you need to do this? What chaotic forces are so prevalent that you must define in law these universal things?

Chaos is the goal of cultural Marxism. If you unhinge even the most fundamental cultural concepts, the foundation of society collapses. The goal of Democrat Socialism is to burn it all down so their economically retarded dystopian phoenix can rise from the ashes.

Kansas just pushed back a tiny bit, but is it enough? Lawsuits will emerge to stay the law while they find a court with a judge like Ketanji Brown Jackson that will declare it unconstitutional (or something). The governor vetoed it, so we can’t expect the Kansas executive branch to defend it. And the legislators likely knew that and did it anyway.

Good for them. Now we wait to see what happens next.

 

The post Kansas Legislature Overrides Veto, Defines Gender in State Law as a Persons Biological Sex at Birth appeared first on Granite Grok.

Recently released F.B.I. documents include a memo stating concerns over “radical extremism” on the rise in Catholic churches, particularly those still observing a Latin Mass.

Several churches in Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas have all reported seeing dark-colored SUVs with heavily tinted windows and men driving with laptops through the church parking lots.

“I knew it wasn’t one of ours because it was tinted but not chopped, essay.  We don’t have anyone driving a stock SUV at this church, homes. The driver was a gringo too, vato ” explained one parishioner who asked to remain anonymous until his immigration status is legal.

A cursory search of the terms “essay” “homes” and “vato” by Bananas Media staff found these are Latin slang terms. However, they were not on the F.B.I. list of terms used by extremists.

Earlier in the month, a whistleblower inside the bureau leaked top secret documents indicating the agency has been working with prominent preachers around the country in hopes of targeting and stopping the rise of this new wave of old-timey Christianity.

One member of the mock-frock, using the alias Jose Osteen, explained their concern.

“We’re afraid people are going to start reading their Bibles instead of going to church, and if they can read Latin, they might even be able to understand the original meaning.”

This raises serious financial concerns for America’s thriving prosperity gospel-teaching churches which rely on keeping parishioners ignorant of sound doctrine.

“The Catholic church had its most prosperous years when the masses couldn’t read.  We’re just looking out for the good of the church,” explains fellow prosperity teacher Creflo Dollar (pronounced “doll-ah”) from inside the cockpit of one of his church’s six private airplanes.

Though church attendance is down nationwide, thanks in large part to a combination of factors such as online services, government COVID mandates to keep churches closed, lack of Biblical literacy, and a sharp rise in the seven deadly sins gaining cultural popularity, the faithful remain faithful.

“We ain’t scared of no protests.  We already survived that like 500 years ago, homes,” exclaims St. Louis Juan Ortega Jackson holding up a copy of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.  For those who haven’t read the protestant playbook, once titled “Rules for Catholic Radicals,” it included such controversial calls to activism as “change the communion wine to grape juice and the bread to some kind of stale cracker,” “put women with short hair in the pulpit”, “give churches pagan names like boulder-stone and tree-branch” and “play the music really loud.”  This playbook would later be adapted by such notable communists as Vladimir Lenin, Saul Alinsky, and MSNBC host Chris Hayes.

“Christians are the original protestors. We been on that!” states expert humble-braggart Steven Furtick.  Furtick is perhaps best known for developing a system of worship that includes organized parking structures, catchy color schemes, and non-descript building styles and is credited with the new preaching style known as “narcigesis.” Fans of his work cite his $1.7 million dollar parsonage and multiple best-selling Christian albums.

The F.B.I. has yet to respond with an official statement regarding this leak. However, they did share a copy of the updated list of terms they are flagging online and in social media that indicate potential extremism.  They include:

• Based
• Red-pilled, blue-pilled, white-pilled, black-pilled, grey-pilled and My Pillow
• Imago Dei
• Freedom
• Free speech
• The First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the other amendments
• The Bill of Rights, The Bill of Wrongs
• Taco Tuesday
• Jesus (pronounced “gee-zus”)

The agency asks anyone who sees these terms used to contact them at 1-800-RAT-FINK.

 

The post Bananas: FBI Targets Extreme Catholicism With Help From Informants appeared first on Granite Grok.

The other day, professional basketball player Brittney Griner said:  ‘I think it’s a crime honestly to separate someone for any reason.’ She was speaking in favor of allowing transgender competition in sports — for example, allowing a male who identifies as a female to compete against females.

But I wonder if she really means what she said.  Because one of the most basic ways that we ‘separate’ athletes is by age.  If an 18-year-old identifies as an 8-year-old, should we let that person compete against 8-year-olds in sports?

If we should have transgender athletes, why not trans-age athletes as well?

As I’ve noted before, this sort of confusion only arises when we start thinking that sports competitions are held for the benefit of the athletes, rather than for the benefit of the spectators.  And what the spectators want most is the possibility of surprise.

The reason Novak Djokovic shouldn’t play against Athena Williams is that it would be boring.  There would be no point in watching.

Just as there is no point in watching a race like this, in which Lia Thomas is done swimming while every other swimmer has at least two laps to go.  It’s hard to even watch the whole race, once you know how it’s going to come out.

Fallon Fox and Erika Newsome should not have fought, for the same reason that Tyson Fury and Stephen Fulton should not fight.   It’s got nothing to do with sex or gender.

The reason for ‘separating’ athletes by sex, age, size, and other attributes has nothing to do with inclusiveness.  It has to do with interestingness, period.

If the people who run competitive sports aren’t careful about mixing sports with politics, the arguments about sports will become more entertaining than the sports themselves. Imagine how that will affect ticket sales.  And athlete salaries.

The post Why Not Trans-age Athletes? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Antony Blinken has a deep history with President Joe Biden. It may very well be that Blinken has done some underhanded, if not illegal, things for the Big Guy. These things may have him sitting in the Secretary of State seat. It certainly is not his credentials. Blinken is considered one of the “made men” in Biden’s world.

During the first Obama term, Blinken was National Security Advisor to Vice President Biden. Tony served as Democratic Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2002 to 2008. We must remember he was advising Biden when most people claim Biden was on the wrong side of every Foreign Policy decision.

Blinken was also involved with the Penn Biden Center, where he was managing director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. He, of course, denies any knowledge of the classified documents found at the Center.

Blinken will have many questions to answer this week from House committees about his involvement in drafting the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials claiming the reports of the Hunter Biden Laptop were Russian misinformation. This event was pivotal in the 2020 election and may have tipped the scale in Biden’s favor. The letter gave Biden the perfect cover when Trump broached the laptop story during the debates. It also allowed the mainstream to avoid any mention of the laptop except to disparage Trump for trying to make it and Hunter an election issue. Reports are that as many as 10% of Democrats would not have voted for Biden had they known about the laptop’s contents, which would have been more than enough to reelect Donald Trump.

By drafting this letter, Blinken is at least guilty of fraud, but the impact of the document shows evidence of election manipulation. The fact that Biden, Blinken, former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, and Jake Sullivan were able to coerce these former officials to sign the letter shows how deep this conspiracy is and how the voters were manipulated. This Blinken-drafted letter all but assured Biden’s win in 2020.

Of course, there were spoils for these culprits. Antony Blinken was nominated and confirmed for the position of Secretary of State. Like most other Biden nominees, Blinken is over his head in this role. Jake Sullivan was also a “made” man and later made Biden’s national security adviser.

Other signatories to the Russian disinformation letter continue to flourish. MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash signed the letter and was placed on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. As with Sullivan, it did not seem to matter that Bash had gotten one of the most critical intelligence stories of the election wrong.

Former CIA head James Clapper was referenced by Biden in the letter and was also a spreader of the Russian collusion claims. CNN gave him a media contract despite those scandals and a declaration of perjury. 

The problem for these men now is the Republicans being in control of the House. Committees are making some headway, and despite political and media obstacles, we are getting to the truth. It does not change one element of this saga-Biden is still in the White House.

 

The post Antony, Do The Honorable Thing, Resign appeared first on Granite Grok.

The New York Post reports that “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton plans to investigate whether their companies misrepresented the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and manipulated vaccine trial data.” Ya Think?

Texas is just the latest to join a growing number of states and nations looking into alleged fraud from Pfizer and Moderna that violated local truth in advertising law of statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices.

 

On Monday, Paxton will launch an investigation into potential violations of his state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, he has revealed exclusively in The Post.

He also wants to know whether the pharmaceutical giants engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about it.

 

Though I’ve not read the relevant Texas statutes, I think we can safely say yes, there were deceptions. Lack of informed consent. Hiding known harms of which there were many. And, of course, claiming it was safe and effective when the Pfizer docs show they knew it was neither – and that will be the tail they pin on this donkey.

Pfizer may be doling out chunks of COVID profits in out-of-court settlements to avoid discovery, by which I mean ever-wider exposure of the Pfizer docs, which begs the question. New Hampshire is a serious gold digger when it comes to chasing corporate payouts for alleged wrongdoing.

Someone has to be looking at the potential profit and measuring it against the potential for political fallout.

But can they?

The Granite State’s Republican governor, ersatz presidential ponderer Chris Sununu, along with his public health apparatchik, hospitals, health care NGOs, and innumerable lesser political beings, echoed the safe and effective narrative. They aped the pandemic of the unvaccinated lie. They rejected any data suggesting masks, distancing, and lockdowns did not work. They refused to believe remote learning or mRNA injections were more dangerous to kids than covid. Opposition to the wait-and-vent death by hospital protocol was met with disdain.

They openly eschewed alternatives to the COVID-Jabs and pandered to lies about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The State even went out of its way to claim that if it took Federal COVID money, it could not be tied to any Federal rules or agreements attached to it.

In other words, many of the people who might want to pursue this new pot of money from Pfizer are complicit in the fraud and knee-deep in the Federal hush money to peddle that fraud.

Going from gold-digging the feds to gold-digging the Pharma Campaign Laundromat would be unseemly.

But if they did, would the State have to return the COVID money if it sued Pfizer for unfair trade practices, or, better yet, is there small print preventing them from suing because they took the money?

 

 

HT | Igor Chudov

The post Texas to Investigate “Whether Vaccine Manufacturers Misrepresented the Effectiveness and Safety of COVID Vaccines.” appeared first on Granite Grok.

I grow more and more ashamed of my alma mater,  Boston University, the more that the too-well-known airhead (otherwise known as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC) lets loose with her Socialist mantras that bedevils her “degree” in economics and international relationship.

Add to that the racist BU professor Ibram X. Kendi, whose best philosophical line (“If you’re not an anti-racist, you’re a racist” – either you’re with me or you’re subhuman as there can be no disagreement with my pontifications, peons).

However, Boston University also had Angelo Codevilla – a conservative Professor with great gravitas, who wrote “The Ruling Class,” which has had a lasting impact on the Right as it purposely encapsulated a view that it was Left vs Right but a Ruling Class (the Elites) vs the Country Class (the Middle Class). But here, an observation from his “The Character of Nations (How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility” (emphasis mine):

 Western regimes have gone out of their way to deny their peoples’ and polities’ kinship with Christianity—the drafters of the European Union’s constitution rejected references to it vehemently and repeatedly. In America, arguing that America is a Christian country endangers careers. Spiritual emptiness, the proposition that human life is qualitatively indistinguishable from animal life and hence meaningless, holds monopoly status in the schools. More important, acceptance of it is de rigueur for interacting with those who count. Moreover, Western regimes have tried to engender ersatz sentiments of reverence for “the planet,” and for their own status as priests of the culture of liberating meaninglessness. Though this culture is entrenched in regimes, and though it has diminished or suppressed the West’s Christianity, it has not engendered enthusiasm, even among its priests.

“Spiritual emptiness” – doesn’t it really explain the problem with the West and especially with America? John Adams importantly said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

At the time, America was seen as a Christian nation and while religious pluralism existed (including the non-religious) and with it, Christian morals and values. However, look at what is important today. It isn’t a sense of piety, a reverence for God, the idea that there was a Superior Being to which we would eventually answer to, a sense of right and wrong, and a moral code that the majority understood (may not have abided by it but knew it was there).

Codevilla correctly says, in different words, that when a Society stops believing in God, it will find something else to believe in instead. We see that in full bloom, now, where everything in the public realm is now, effectively, a malleable form of Paganism with a Gaia-centering where sin has devolved to one item: CO2 emissions. All of our lives MUST be devalued so that Gaia (a mud ball) would rise. In effect, many of its devotees believe that humanity is NOT part of Nature but a scourge instead.

But there is no form of a moral code between people – just the Earth and we being “her serfs” with a theology that is defined by whims and paid for with indulgences and misery. Christianity was all about lifting up – environmentalism is always about physical debasement without the feeding of an integral part of being human – our souls.

And without that, can there be ANY wonder why life seems to be getting worse by the day?

 

(H/T: Powerline)

The post Angelo Codevilla Nails the Entropy That Has Seeped Into the West appeared first on Granite Grok.

I am not talking about the 21-year-old alleged leaker from Massachusetts, Jack Teixeira. Teixeira was arrested and quickly found guilty by the anxious media. Teixeira was easy prey for the media. He is not in government or any of our alphabet agencies.

Teixeira is just a kid who did something wrong and got caught, and everyone wants to see him tried for treason.

No, I am talking about the elusive Supreme Court leaker who has been unnamed for nearly a year. I am talking about the leaker who informed the media about an upcoming ruling that would jeopardize Roe v Wade.

I am talking about the leaker who sparked protests from Pro-Choice advocates who feared the end of legal abortions. The leaker spawned a crazed man to attempt to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his Georgetown home. Yet, this leaker remains unnamed and, I fear, forgotten by most people. We have a short memory of news topics as they pop up, fill the headlines, and quickly retreat to page 6 below the fold. In about as small a haystack, as you can imagine, authorities cannot find the SCOTUS Leaker.

The Marshalls have completely controlled the investigation since it was divulged last year. They do not have the resources to close it out and tell the world who destroyed the sanctity of our highest court. It has been suggested that the FBI be brought in. They do have the ultimate resources and should be able to close this case quickly. Justice Alito released a statement this week that he has a good idea who the leaker is.  Let’s get it done. This leaker deserves jail time, and now.

But the Deep State isn’t concerned with the leaker.  They did their job and served a purpose. The leak focused the nation on Roe, and though it did not change the outcome, it did rile the country. That appears to be the job of our government. Not to unify but to rile and divide. That is the job that Joe Biden claims he needs to finish.

They are not concerned with the leak or leaker or even the attempt on a Supreme Court Justice’s life. They want to investigate a long-standing conservative Justice for ethics violations. I can see the questioners delving into the lives of Justices Thomas. Maybe they can bring back Feinstein (of the Chinese spy driver), Blumenthal (of lied about Vietnam), or possibly Schiff will be in the Senate by then. These high moral Senators grilling a Supreme Court Justice about ethics is laughable. But that is the comedy of D.C. today. Nothing makes sense, and common sense is about as prevalent as a unanimous vote on the Senate floor.

Did Thomas take extravagant trips on donor’s dimes? Yes, but the real crime committed by Thomas was being a Black conservative. He does not fit in their agenda and therefore has to be brought down. Tearing him down is far easier than finding a leaker and plays much better on the six o’clock news.

The post When Will We Do Something About This Leaker appeared first on Granite Grok.