Vermont has a squishy Republican governor and veto-proof majorities of Dems in its legislature. Team Blue is looking for a workaround to Carson v. Makin which forbids a state with a tuitioning program from discriminating against children who might want to spend it at faith-based schools.

They say things like, “More public education money than ever is going to religious schools that discriminate against LGBTQ students.”

Families are already taking their public money to religious schools here in Vermont.

And some of these schools, on their websites, and in their admission papers, say they won’t admit gay or trans students. So, you know, our public money is now paying for religious schools that discriminate against these kids.

And there’s another thing, and that’s that there’s a compelled support clause in the Vermont Constitution, and that says that Vermonters cannot be forced to support a religion they don’t agree with.

For the record, Vermonters have been forced to support religions with which they might disagree for decades. The Feds hand billions in “public money” to religious organizations to resettle refugees yearly. Billions with a “B.” Democrats (as a Party) not only have no qualms or concerns, they’ve been known to defend the investment.

They’d give money to Jesus himself if he were willing to hold a BLM sign or wear Antifa black block and suppress the speech of Republicans.

This is not a question of discrimination (unless you mean against people of faith). It is about education control. The Constitution continues to get between them and your children, and schools that won’t indoctrinate kids in the fashionable gender mythology of the day threaten their ‘mission.’

As for discriminating against gay or trans kids, as long as they can get whatever the government claims passes for an education, they can choose any private school they want. Sorry, that’s not true. Numerous private schools refuse kids for a wide range of reasons. These are the schools to which the wealthier among us, including those on the Political Left, send their kids.

They are expensive enough to make them exclusive bastions of ruling-class privilege—places where academic rigor results in a mind taught how to learn, not just what to learn.

The government schools are for everyone else and, with the help of government unions, are a monopoly over which the progressive project (with rare exceptions) have absolute educational and ideological control. A cartel that funnels “public money” through a system that, with few exceptions, advocates and activates a partisan political agenda that -coincidentally – aligns with the priorities of Vermont Democrats.

They have a trapped (future) constituency through whom they can advance policy. But people of faith are protected from government mandates that force them to operate outside their chosen belief system. Children and their parents or guardians cannot be prohibited from using a state school tuitioning program.

And since the state cannot be so bold as to refuse to certify qualifying faith-based schools to protect their secular monopoly, they are left with how to prevent students who might do better outside the public school from using education dollars to get that education beyond their control.

That is the problem Vermont Democrats are trying to solve, and so far, they’ve been unable to find a way to do it, and that’s good news.

The post Vermont Lawmakers Look For Ways to Keep Kids From Attending Religious Schools appeared first on Granite Grok.

It seems that most of what goes on around “a Transwoman IS A WOMAN!!!” when it comes to the arena of ideas that anyone can change their sex from male to female or the other way around.  It always seems to be oriented around what “equipment” a woman has that a transwoman doesn’t, that some women can’t bear children so it “takes away” that argument about transwomen, et al, et al, et al. Some of these transwomynx disturbed people have complained that they have had periods in trying to have people that they have the equivalent (and the pain) of having periods. Which, as a biologist, requires that a body has a working uterus that hasn’t undergone menopause.

So Matt Walsh (he of the famous question “What Is A Woman?) has a great question of a “transgender” EMT concerning if the EMT was called to see a Transwomen who was complaining about having a miscarriage (hey,  so why not go to the next level?).  After the intro to this video, really watch that long pause by the transgender EMT:

Matt Walsh Roasts Trans EMT With One Simple Question



 

So let me reverse which way the “argument” is facing. It isn’t what a transwoman doesn’t have, it’s all about the organ that they DO have – that a “women” doesn’t. Again, being a biologist, I’m not clear as to why I didn’t think of this before – or others?

That would be the organ that for which almost all men hate going to a doctor for an annual exam. I’ll tell you, I absolutely HATE it every time:

Yep, after, after that “SNAP” of the glove, the next thing you hear is “bend over ” as the doc checks your prostate.

YOUR PROSTATE!  And it is generally, for me, not a comfortable exam. I’ll leave the details to the reader. So it’s real and...it is exclusively a male organ (just not the one that most people think of as being part of maleness in this whole transgender mashup). Women don’t have it – and can’t. Just like men can’t have ovaries and uteruses (uteri?).

SO, the next time you hear the denial argument that not all women can’t give birth in trying to rationalize that they are a woman, ask them if they have a prostate?

Got one? You’re a dude unless you had a congenital issue or surgery.  Dudettes don’t. Period (and not the way I used that word earlier).

Now, will this be sufficient to win an argument?  No because transgenderism for many has become a faith religion – they CAN’T look at themselves with any kind of reality because then they would be heretical to themselves.  This is why they always try to separate biological sex from gender (but they are starting to lose on that front every time Normal people see a hulking 6’5” male trying to believe they are something that they can never be).  But it can result in some amusing looks on some faces.

And for the record, I like the rest of the podcast as well.

(H/T: Daily Caller)

The post Hey, Mx. Transwomynx, Got a Prostate? Then Guess What? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Concord, N.H. — Marijuana legalization is one step closer to reality in New Hampshire after the state House of Representatives voted 272-109 to pass HB 639.

HB 639, a bill to legalize marijuana in New Hampshire, has bipartisan sponsors in House and Senate

While legalization efforts have fallen short in recent years, this year’s effort has positive momentum heading into the state Senate with HB 639 having bipartisan sponsors in both the House and Senate.

HB 639, which would legalize marijuana for adults over the age of 21, is co-sponsored by House Republican and Democrat leaders, Representative Jason Osborne (R) and Representative Matt Wilhelm (D), and is supported by a broad coalition of representatives from the marijuana industry and civil rights and policy groups.

Polling has shown that the vast majority, more than 70%, of New Hampshire residents support the legalization of marijuana for adults. In recent years, legalization bills have passed in the state House of Representatives, but have fallen short in the state Senate.

“I am pleased to see New Hampshire take a step toward relieving gangsters and thugs from control of this market, keeping dangerous untested products away from consumers, and protecting children from harmful age-inappropriate products,” said Representative Jason Osborne.

“With the decisive passage of HB 639, the New Hampshire House has sent a strong message that this is the year to legalize adult-use cannabis in the Granite State,” said Representative Matt Wilhelm. “Every year we fail to legalize marijuana, the state wastes valuable resources and ruins the lives of many young and poor Granite Staters by enforcing failed prohibition. New Hampshire remains the only state in New England that has failed to legalize cannabis, while our neighbors benefit from increased revenue and their cannabis users benefit from safer testing and regulation of the product. Legalization of adult possession of small amounts of cannabis is the right thing to do for New Hampshire and we must get it done in 2023.”

HB 639 now passes to the state Senate, where it also will be supported by a bipartisan group.  State Senator Keith Murphy (R), State Senator Becky Whitley (D), and State Senator Donovan Fenton (D) are supporting this bill through the Senate, and plan to work with members of their parties to get adult-use marijuana legalization to the governor’s desk for the first time.

“Prohibition has proven over and over to be a failed public policy,” said State Senator Keith Murphy. “It is especially ineffective when all of our surrounding states have already legalized marijuana possession and use. Investigating and prosecuting cannabis possession is a terrible waste of tax dollars. For these reasons, I am encouraging my Senate colleagues to support the bill.”

“There’s momentum behind marijuana legalization this year, Granite Staters want this to happen and it’s time that lawmakers come together and listen to our constituents,” said State Senator Becky Whitley. “HB 639 would stop the cycle of harm caused by enforcing marijuana prohibition from the day that it’s signed. With such far-reaching, positive impact at stake, there’s no time to wait.”

The broader coalition of bill HB 639 includes: Americans for Prosperity – New Hampshire, The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Cannabis Association, Prime ATC, Hon. Timothy Egan, Hon. Joe Hannon, Attorney Paul Twomey, and the Marijuana Policy Project.

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

Coalition members said:

Ross Connolly, AFP-NH Deputy State Director, said, “We applaud the New Hampshire House for once again passing HB 639 by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority. Public polling consistently shows 70%+ of Granite Staters support legalizing cannabis for adults. Representatives made it clear that they stand with their constituents by finding a bipartisan compromise that protects consumer safety, restricts access to minors, and keeps the regulatory and tax structure low to ensure retail cannabis in the Granite State is competitive with our neighbors. We encourage the Senate and Governor to join the House in supporting this thoughtful and uniquely New Hampshire approach to legalizing cannabis for adults.”

Frank Knaack, Policy Director for the ACLU of New Hampshire, said, “Sold to the public in the name of public safety, New Hampshire’s marijuana laws needlessly ensnare over a thousand people — disproportionately Black people — in its criminal justice system every year. New Hampshire’s war on marijuana harms community safety, wastes taxpayer dollars, is enforced with a staggering racial bias, and ruins lives — it’s time for it to end.”

Hon. Timothy Egan, NHCANN Board of Advisors Chair, said “HB 639 is a great example of intelligent, bipartisan legislation by two important House Committees. It answers our residents’ call for regulation, in a fiscally prudent manner, while being socially respectful to our communities, public safety officials and patients. We look forward to engaging the Senate and Governor, to gain their insights on this “New Hampshire way” of legalizing cannabis for adults.”

Karen O’Keefe, Marijuana Policy Project director of state policies, said, “Year after year, legalization bills have died in the Senate after passing the House, leaving New Hampshire as the only state in New England that hasn’t legalized and regulated cannabis for adults. HB 639 is informed by the lessons of the 21 states that have already legalized cannabis and reflects the priorities and values of New Hampshire. It’s past time for the Granite State to live up to its ’Live Free’ motto and finally end their status as an island of prohibition by passing this bill.“

View a bill summary from the Marijuana Policy Project here, and a fact sheet from the ACLU of New Hampshire here.

The post Marijuana Legalization Bill Passes House with Major Bipartisan Support appeared first on Granite Grok.

Reuben King is an Amish farmer in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He’s got a side hustle selling long guns to the locals. How many? When the ATF raided his barn, they confiscated 615 of them.

Undercover ATF and State Troopers had been buying guns from King from 2019 to  2021. In the middle of all that, the ATF sent King a letter telling him he needed a Federal Firearms License or he had to stop selling guns.

 

But King doesn’t need an FFL, his attorney, Joshua Prince, told The Epoch Times. He will argue the FFL itself is unconstitutional.

Firearms sellers—those who sell occasionally from a private collection, and those who hold an FFL— have come under more scrutiny since June 2021 when President Joe Biden declared “zero tolerance for rogue gun dealers that willfully violate the law.”

 

King’s private collection included, according to the ATF,

 

During the January barn raid at King’s property, the ATF said it recovered ample evidence of an ongoing gun selling business, including 615 guns, many marked with price tags; approximately 10,000 rounds of ammunition; detailed records showing thousands of purchases and sales of guns over many years; receipts for advertisements placed in a local newspaper offering firearms for sale under several names and phone numbers; and plastic bowls containing numerous pre-marked price tags sorted by denominations.

King had approximately 30 brand-new, Savage Axis rifles (26 in the same caliber)—each in an unopened factory box, and all in a larger palleted shipping box—as well as a similar stack of 19 Silver Eagle shotguns (18 in the same gauge), also new in box, court papers say.

 

Don’t you wish your personnel collection looked like that too? Well, maybe it could. King’s lawyer will be working to make that possible.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the understanding of the Second Amendment around the time of the founding is the best measure of what the founders intended.

“You will not find any laws in existence around the time of the founding that required an individual to obtain a license to be able to sell firearms,” Prince said. “It wasn’t until 1938 that the first Federal Firearms Act, requiring sellers of firearms to become licensed, was enacted.” That was 147 years later.

When you’re right, you are right. The right to keep and bear arms say nothing about how or how many. And it has long been understood that in almost any society, you are free to trade, gift, or sell your property. So, what if that property consists of several hundred rifles?

Is that a line you won’t cross?

The weenie progressives are wetting themselves at the thought of seeing a truck back up in their neighbor’s driveway to drop off a pallet of rifles. I’d pay to see a picture of that. But given the new SCOTUS benchmark for gun laws, restrictions, rules, and provisos, the Amish Farmer may be on to something.

If the case finds its way to the highest court, the ATF might find itself with a lot more free time on its hands, which, maybe, they could spend learning how not to shoot people’s dogs or – since it’s trendy – helping the FBI find unhinged military aged American Yutes who claim to be transgender.

 

HT | ET

The post Amish Farmer Tells ATF He Does Not Need an FFL to Sell Long Guns and It’s Off to Court They Go appeared first on Granite Grok.

This post is about my agreement with a recent tweet from Ryan Terrell, the NHGOP Vice Chair … because (1) that tweet is spot on and (2) that he tweeted it shows that unlike most of the “leaders” of the NHGOP he is NOT suffering from low testosterone. The tweet:

My fellow Republicans & right of center thinkers,

Accept that the other side HATES us & always will

Facts, logic & reason do NOT matter to them

They DESPISE our existence, period

Nothing will EVER change that

We are in the post-persuasion era — accept it & operate as…

— NHGOP Vice Chair Ryan Terrell (@NHGOPViceChair) April 5, 2023

Note that he is NOT saying that there are no persuadable voters. He is saying that in the aggregate Democrats are not persuadable. And he is absolutely correct. People who reflexively call you … or who believe that you are … Nazis, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Fascists, Putin’s Puppets, Homophobic, Transphobic, et. etc. etc., EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY (sorry, bitter-clingers, but they are saying it indirectly when they say the candidates you vote for are Nazis, etc. etc. etc. and the policies you support are ___phobic, etc. etc. etc.), are obviously NOT going to be swayed by facts, logic or reason.

And … it is sad I have to explain this to some of you … the people who call you Nazis, etc. etc. etc. and call the policies you support authoritarianism, fascism, ___phobic, etc. etc. etc. DO HATE YOU. Are you that in denial, or that lacking in self-esteem, or that pathetic that you actually believe that the people who say AND BELIEVE that Trump is Hitler don’t hate you?

So here is a STUPID reply to Terrell from one of the NHGOP “insiders”:

Terrell is NOT saying New Hampshire elections can be won with “hard republicans” alone. What I take away from his tweet is that he is saying is that every minute a GOP candidate spends trying to reason with, find common ground with, etc. etc. etc. “hard Democrats” is a wasted minute … that every dollar spent trying to win the votes of “hard Democrats” is a dollar wasted. “Hard Democrats” … no matter if they call themselves “Independents” … are NOT persuadable. People who believe that you are Nazis, that democracy only exists when their candidates win, etc. etc. etc. are NOT persuadable. PERIOD.

My view, as I have made clear repeatedly, is that New Hampshire is a lost cause. Terrell obviously disagrees … otherwise he wouldn’t have run for Vice Chair. But unlike so many others in the NHGOP, he at least sees the opposition for what they are … and has the testosterone to call it like he sees it.

Unlike this low-testosterone  excuse for a State Representative, Joke Sweeney who responded to Terrell as follows:

Seems the era of persuasion is alive and well when we roll up our sleeves and work in good faith with one another regardless of party label.

Because of that, NH is extremely close to being truly Income Tax free. A huge win for conservatives that can’t be overlooked. #NHPolitics

— Joe Sweeney (@JoeSweeneyNH) April 6, 2023

Dear Joker, the budget the majority GOP House passed represents capitulation, not persuasion. You gave up on expanding Education Freedom Accounts and reduced that budget appropriation by $10 million each year, despite increasing overall spending by nearly$2,000 per person … in order to get Democrat support for cutting interest and dividend taxes for wealthy people. In other words, you screwed working and middle class parents. If that’s a “huge win for conservatives” one shudders to think what a loss would look like.

 

The post One Member Of State Party NOT Suffering From Low Testosterone appeared first on Granite Grok.

I have heard a rumor that no one is above the law. This is the alleged rationale for the indictment of former president Donald Trump. To borrow from our President-in-Name-Only, I only have two words: Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Are you old enough to remember how their behavior was either dismissed, supported, or both?

A letter writer to the Sun (4-3-23) somehow believes that Trump’s indictment made accountability great again. Uh-huh. See the previous paragraph.

I found Rep. Bordes’ reasoning for eliminating the penalties for performing abortions after 24 weeks somewhat lacking (Daily Sun 4-5-23). Isn’t the whole point of having penalties attached to malum prohibitum laws to dissuade people from violating said laws? Having no penalties is like having a chihuahua as a guard dog: not too many people will be frightened.

Another recent letter to the Sun (4/3/23) calls out the Free State Project by claiming that, somehow, FSP people ( i.e., state representatives? He isn’t clear.)  have “forced” restrictions on freedom of speech. He claims that speaking about American history and gender issues has been forbidden. Um, no. The restrictions are in response to lying,  biased, and racist versions of our history. The misrepresentation of gender issues is what was addressed, not eliminating the ability to speak about them.

Are “hate crimes” on the rise, especially in NH? My question is: is there actually such a thing as a “hate crime”? As so many things in the real world have opposites (e.g., hot and cold – well, lack of heat, actually, up and down, left and right), are there then “love crimes”? I would say there are not. That said, as I have repeatedly noted, the publicity provided to this minority of citizens seems to only encourage them to continue to scrawl lame supremacist slogans. While we don’t have to ignore them, their antics don’t need to be on the front page.

Another writer (3-21-23) stated that history could not be rewritten. Perhaps not, but the recording of said history can be biased. She notes “that Africans were kidnapped from their homes and subjected to slavery.” What she missed was that it was their fellow Africans who did the kidnapping and the selling of these people to the white colonists. Kind of an important missing piece. Maybe she was right: “Rewriting history means the horrors of the truth is [sic] lost.

A piece in the Sun (3-20-23) noted that a Belmont resident was reported to have weapons, including three handguns, five rifles, and knives. The “firearms” were then said to be airsoft guns. So, I guess that he didn’t have any firearms. The accompanying photo had the scary “firearms” displayed. Typical Sun reporting.

A piece in the Wall Street Journal (1-9-23) on public transit notes that “when riders stop taking subways and buses, it’s harder to keep up service.” Whoda thunk it?  I’m sure that the World Economic Forum will find out how to force us into the train cars.

I read that the Real ID deadline has been extended yet again. Do you want a definition of closing the barn door after the horse is gone? See Real ID.

The last item from way back in last November, the NH Executive Council rejected funding for sex education.  The amount of funding was $682,000. How many people would that potentially assist, you may wonder? One thousand. What in the wide, wide world of sports would $68,200 per person provide? I guess that we’ll never know.

The post A Curious Collection of Comments To Consider. appeared first on Granite Grok.

We are created for the Eternal, created for the Sacred.

-Lauren Daigle

“No greater Love is this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. “I have come that you may have everlasting Life…No man comes to the Father but by me.”

(ohn 15:13, I John 5:13)

“I’m coming back to the heart of worship. It’s all about You, It’s all about You, Jesus. I’m sorry, Lord, for the things I’ve made it. It’s all about You, it’s all about You, Jesus…”. -Michael W. Smith

Chris Tomlin: “We fall down, we lay our crown. At the feet of Jesus. The greatness of Mercy and love, at the feet of Jesus. And we cry holy, holy, holy…”

From “Jesus Music” to “Contemporary Christian Music” and 30 years later, circling back to worship music. From church music to music industry and finally back to its roots there is Worship music circulating, sans industry, from church to church as it did in the beginning.  From grassroots returning to grassroots.

It seems to be an eternal cycle: from simple beginnings where true worship, me to God, you to God, happens. Then the trappings of “religion” start to get in the way, of special clothing, of determined rituals and sacrements, or ordered services and liturgies. What happened to simply worshipping, one heart to His? As “religious life” gets more and more complicated (an “improvement” by some), more “doing” than contemplating, our relationship with God gets lost. The purpose gets lost and priorities as to what was important, what SHOULD be important, gets lost.

No, this is not my regular kind of “Easter Post” post as you can tell (here) but then again the documentary “The Jesus Movie” hasn’t been around for a while (FX network) that documents how the Jesus Freaks, Jesus Music, and the Jesus movement started back in the late 1960s, started to blossom in the 1970s, and how it as now gone full circle. I’ve now watched twice in the last few days (2.5 hours in length).

How did the “counter-culture” reaction start out in California in trying to find “the heart of worship”? What was it’s battles against the status quo (like Jesus in Israel, Luther pounding his thesis into the church door, from the High Liturgy of the Catholic Church to the “low liturgy” of the Pilgrims) at the time of its start?  And more importantly, what happened between that simple worship and how Christian music “lost it purpose and priority” and how (in part) it returned to First Principles?

As you can tell, it grabbed my attention as I was part of that era, singing a church choir (hymnals and organ/piano) and then to a teenager group with electric guitars, drums, and horns).  It was about worship, it was about getting the Gospel message out…

…and then things changed. Some said “matured”, but something was lost in translation. “It’s all about you” became other things as the movie presents – but only presents a small slice of what was happening in Christianity at the time along side the music (yes, you can argue what was “beside which” depending on your point of view). I don’t think I’d be far off to say it lost its soul, at least in part.

And then, as hearts noticed their “holes”, that something was missing, worship, true worship, returned and with that musical side to it again. The music returned to its real place – to support the idea and meaning of reaching out to God, to worship Him and not to just listen to highly produced music and singing along. This second generation of “Jesus Music”, returning as Worship music, stirred souls. It did mine even as I had experienced its first generation.

And then it had its time. But that hunger for God always exists. Think I’m wrong? Review that first quote at the top of this post: “We are created for the Eternal, created for the Sacred.” People hunger for God. Or some facsimile thereof because as we know, if people refuse the reality of God, they will put something else into its place.

Back in February, something happened to prove that truth.  From The Atlantic (of all places!) is the amazing story of yet another revival:

On February 8, after a regularly scheduled chapel service on Asbury University’s campus, in Wilmore, Kentucky, a group of about 20 students lingered and began to worship and pray for one another. The chapel speaker that day, Zak Meerkreebs, had exhorted the students to “become the love of God by experiencing the love of God,” and closed with a prayer asking God to “revive us by your love.” According to the students, as they stayed and prayed, an unexplainable, surreal peace descended upon the room. As minutes stretched into hours, many students who had gone to class returned to the auditorium when they heard what was going on. They would eventually be joined by faculty, staff, and community members who trickled in to participate in worship and prayer.

In the days since, a stream of pilgrims has made its way to Wilmore. All of the auditorium’s almost 1,500 wooden flip seats are occupied; the walls and archways leading into the gathering space are crammed with people hungering to join in. Crowds have congregated in auditoriums and chapels elsewhere in town, singing and praying and reading the Bible. There has been a steady diet of proclamation (both standard preaching and personal testimonies), public confession, prayer (individual and corporate), scripture reading, and singing. People I have spoken with who entered these spaces describe encountering a “sweet presence,” “deep peace,” or “the quiet, heavy presence of God.” A sense of awe prevails. It is, one participant told me, as if “heaven opened up.”

I live 20 minutes from Asbury and have spent nine days there since the revival began, and I see a paradox at play. The event has gone viral online—on TikTok, the hashtag #asburyrevival has more than 100 million views and counting. But its appeal is actually its physicality and simplicity. In a time of factionalism, celebrity culture, and performance, what’s happening at Asbury is radically humble. And it gives me great hope for the future of American Christianity.

As of this Friday, the university will no longer hold public worship services. “I have been asked if Asbury is ‘stopping’ this outpouring of God’s Spirit and the stirring of human hearts,” the university president said in a statement. “I have responded by pointing out that we cannot stop something we did not start.” Indeed, the phenomenon has been reported to have spread to other schools, including Samford University, Lee University, and Cedarville University.

America has experienced several spiritual “Awakenings” in its past when things appeared to be dire. Was the returning back to Worship style of singing presaging yet another one?

Wise men still seek Him”

And He still seeks us – He sent his only Son to be a propitiation for our sins as he nailed to that cross in agony (“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”). He died that day but rose again on their third day which we call Easter.

Let us worship Him and for the grace and mercy He has shown us. We all have sinned – none of us is perfect. That sin separates us from God who is Holy (meaning “set apart”). Jesus came, lived, and died to be that bridge between we who are unholy to God the Father, who is Holy.

The heart of worship is all He asks for.

The post Worship: “For Such a Time As This…It’s all about You” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Hanover, NH – Concerned Alumni of Dartmouth College is excited to announce the addition of a moderator and new panelist for the upcoming “College Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates – Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Considerations: A Roundtable Discussion and Dinner Event,” to be held at Dartmouth College’s Hanover Inn in Hanover, NH on April 26.

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

Kim Witczak, a leading global drug safety advocate, will moderate. Ms. Witczak is a Consumer Representative on the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drug Advisory Committee reviewing new drugs coming to market and is a board member with several non-profit organizations in the field of drug and patient safety. Our panel of thought-leaders for the discussion now includes Dr. Sandy Reider, a Harvard-trained Vermont family physician with decades of experience. Dr. Reider serves as Medical Advisor to the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice and is also a founding member of Physicians for Informed Consent. He joins panelists  Dr. Martin Kulldorff (co-author Great Barrington Declaration), Dr. Asseem Malhotra (UK Cardiologist, joining us remotely), Dr. Joel Wallskog (co-founder React19), Todd Zywicki, ’88 (professor, Antonin Scalia Law School), Brook Jackson (clinical trial expert and whistleblower). Dartmouth College has been invited to participate by sending representatives to be part of the discussion. At the time of this release, they have not agreed to participate.

The panel discussion, free and open to Dartmouth students, faculty, and administration, as well as the general public on a first-come, first-served basis, will take place from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm. Advance registration is required. For those unable to attend in person, a livestream and recording of the event will be available.

Following the discussion, a dinner featuring keynote speaker Aaron Siri, Esq. will be held. The dinner benefits React19, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the Covid-19 vaccine-injured community.

“The continued fanaticism of American colleges and universities to coerce healthy young people to accept the Covid shots as a condition to attend college is shameful,” said Todd Zywicki Dartmouth ’88.  “Vaccine mandates are justified only when there is demonstrable evidence that the shots will prevent transmission without serious side-effects. Neither is true of these shots. It is time to end these unethical and unscientific coercive policies.”

“The Dartmouth motto is ‘Vox Clamantis in Deserto’ or a voice crying out in the wilderness,” said Steve Berger, Tuck ‘87. “In that spirit everyone should listen to the brave doctors and scientists who have been silenced and ignored while raising legitimate medical and ethical concerns about college and university Covid-19 vaccine mandates and policies.”

Read more about this event and about our student sponsorship initiative in an article by Christopher Dreisbach recently featured on the No College Mandates Substack.

To reserve or purchase tickets, please visit React19.org/DartC19/ or email info@openlettertodartmouth.com.

For media inquiries or further information, please contact Christopher Dreisbach (Dartmouth ‘00) at Christopher.Dreisbach@react19.org.

The post “Concerned Alumni of Dartmouth College Announce Moderator and New Panelist for “College Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates” Roundtable appeared first on Granite Grok.

You may be wondering what in the wide, wild world of sports is going on these days in women’s athletics thanks to all the gender-bending and rule-breaking, most recently right here in Vermont. 

Earlier this year, the Vermont Principal’s Association made the unpopular decision to ban the Mid-Vermont Christian School girl’s basketball team, and all the other teams in the school for that matter, after the team decided to forfeit its game against another school sporting a trans-boy-saying-he-plays-like-a-girl athlete.  Rather than simply acknowledge their constitutional right to follow their consciences and exercise their religious liberties, the VPA did what principal bodies live to do best – hand out punishments.

The hot-button issue quickly went viral thanks to social media, where New York Times Best Selling Author and world-renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson re-tweeted a Valley News article with the uncharacteristically laconic but highly Canadian phrase “It’s aboot time.”

Support for the team was massive, other than among red and blue-haired women in Vermont or those elected to represent them like Windsor County Senator and neighbor to the girls Becca White.  A crew from CNN was chased off the MVCS campus by a small band of dads wielding pitchforks and “fully semi-automatic high-powered bump-style weapons of mass destruction,” as described by Senator White.  The film crew then made their way across the street to Jakes for some flapjacks and beet hash, where they were able to interview the freshly coiffed senator, who was more than happy to offer standard progressive talking points on camera.

After CNN reported the incident, the alternative media swooped into action and interviewed some of the dads, which is when the actual story emerged.  It turns out a bear was recently spotted strolling through the campus and was found shooting baskets at the courts near the elementary school.  The bear had such tremendous touch and accuracy inside the paint the dads, wanting to keep their school open for fear of losing funding, decided to detain the bear and bring it inside the gymnasium to scrimmage.

What happened next was remarkable.

After only a few short moments, it was clear this bear could not only brawl, it could ball.  Head coach Chris Goodwin tallied up the bear’s statistics after the day’s events and reported to Banana’s News Inc. the bear had collected 114 rebounds, 117 points, 98 steals, and only 14 fouls in just over 20 minutes of play.  Play stopped after the 14th foul, given each foul sent one of the girls to the bench with either a minor injury or mostly minor blood loss.  Assistant coach Helen Jenks is encouraged, though, since “the girls are young” and “they heal quickly.”

The Christian community caught wind of the bear, and an ad hoc school meeting was convened to discuss what may be the most incredible act of cunning since Jacob stole Esau’s birthright.  After reviewing the current Vermont Statutes on anti-discrimination, the team’s legal counsel concluded they could, in fact, have a bear play on the girl’s team, so long as the bear was female or identified as female.  Biblical counsel was offered by local pastor Neal Patel of Valley Bible Church, who pointed out, “there is nothing in the Bible about bears playing girls’ basketball.”

Can a brother get an amen!?

Stunned by this oversight, VPA director Jay Nichols couldn’t help but admire the school’s clever ploy to circumvent their deliberately obscure rules and has welcomed the team back into the league, where they are the early favorites to win next year’s state championship.

The bear was required by law to submit to a full athletic health screening, which it narrowly passed, given it has not been vaccinated for COVID-19 yet still has advanced myocarditis thanks to its habitual use of cocaine.  Both the Mid Vermont School board and VPA have decided to look the other way on this since cocaine is technically not listed as a performance-enhancing drug for bears in Vermont, and everyone can’t wait to see the bear start setting state records for girls’ sports.

 

 

The post Bananas: Vermont Principal’s Association Reinstates MVCS Thanks To Cocaine Bear appeared first on Granite Grok.

All ages have played the great game of “CLUE”! Our grandchildren benefit from the lessons in Holmesian deduction and intuition. Unfortunately, diabolically intentioned elected Federal officials have used the same strategy as members of the Deep State to ferret out the smallest fish to fry with the fickle finger of blame.

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

I learned this lesson as a young Laconia City Councilman. Highly paid bureaucrats will finger the lowest person on the “Totem Pole” as responsible for an indiscretion.

In the headlines today, human nature continues its march backward. On February 3, 2023, a Norfolk- Southern train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. Mush-for-Brains makes an idiotic decision to release highly poisonous and explosive chemicals into the atmosphere over Palestine, Ohio. Astoundingly, Mush-for-Brains either overlooks or does not care it has released poisonous chemicals that will not only destroy East Palestine but will infiltrate our rivers, water systems and the air we breathe wherever the wind may blow.

And so, the game of Clue begins. Who are the suspects who unleashed Chernobyl 2 on US ? Let’s name the suspects from most likely to least likely ,based on common sense:

Bumbles Biden, the EPA director, the CEO of Norfolk-Southern, the Governor of Pennsylvania and/or Ohio, or the East Palestine Fire Chief. In the first roll of the dice, Ohio’s Governor, Mr. Milqetoast, took the podium, sort of admitted he made the decision and advised ‘ just drink bottled.’ Next roll of the dice, the Governor of Pennsylvania thought he may have made the Decision. It is becoming more difficult to use the Holmesian deduction method as there are now two-semi confessions.

However, as the Palestine debacle deteriorates, both Governors regret and recant their confessions. After all, they are politicians.

Then the CEO comes to town, speaks privately to an unknown audience, which certainly did not include the severely threatened and injured residents of Palestine, and departs as secretly as he arrived.

One CLUE player picks up a clue that reveals Bumbles Biden is in Ukraine, probably collecting his 10% of the $150 billion donated to his fellow grifter buddy, Zelensky.

A second CLUE card reveals that the EPA director is busy planning a junket to Africa with his hard rock buddies to a climate change conference and a magical mystery tour. So, clearly, Bumbles and Mr. EPA were otherwise occupied and unavailable to make this idiotic decision even though federal law requires Bumbles and Mr. EPA to make the Decision.

After passing the buck from February 3rd to 21st, these outstanding public servants announced that the case had been solved. The culprit is the Fire Chief of Palestine. The CLUE players are now totally confused, confounded, and bewildered.

Bumbles Biden still has not visited East Palestine, but he made a trip to California to collect Pop’s share of the Billion Dollar Bank Bailout, as Hunter puts it.

 

The post The Game of Clue appeared first on Granite Grok.

An injustice was done, and a single individual citizen said, “No, I will not let this stand.” That was Linda Brown. She did the digging into the process and the materials and found that things were not done correctly.

Only through the efforts of a curious citizen reviewing the results of the recent Sandown Selectman’s race this past March was the correct Selectman finally seated.  How do I know this?

I was tipped off by a Sandown resident that there had been a large error in counting the votes and that the Sandown Selectmen had seated the wrong person. As you will see in the video, even though she had brought it to their attention, it was clear that the Selectmen were not all that bemused with her – I would call it outright hostility. Shades of “you are making so much work for us and making us look bad.”

 



 

And from watching the recording, that sentiment was clear. Yet, they still did the right thing when it was brought to their attention. The Eagle-Tribune also has covered the story of this mistake (reformatted, emphasis mine):

 

Human error leads to wrong Sandown resident being sworn in

SANDOWN — A troublesome error was discovered during a citizen’s independent recount of the March 14 election results: The wrong selectman was sworn into office. Sandown officials initially announced that Edward Mencis received more votes than Robert Nickerson on election night — 269 to 217.

A review three weeks later found a clerical error in the vote tally. Nickerson actually received two more votes than Mencis with a count of 271, not 217.  A citizen’s request for election documents led to a discovery that tallies from separate voting machines, hand-counted ballots and write-ins were incorrectly reported with transposed numbers.

Mencis, along with top vote-getter Benjamin Sharpe, was already sworn in as selectmen on March 20 based on the town-reported tally. Town Clerk Dawn Nicolaisen was notified of the error by the citizen afterward. She reviewed the tally and inspected the results printed from the voting machines and discovered the same mistake. She determined human error was to blame. “It was 100% human error in my office,” Nicolaisen said. “It was nothing to do with the tapes or the voting machines.”

The town alerted the New Hampshire secretary of state and attorney general about the error. Those top state officials advised the town to seek an agreement between both candidates that Nickerson was the rightful winner.

The Selectmen, the Town Clerk, and the Moderator all combined to do the right thing. Mr. Mencis graciously resigned and Nickerson was sworn in.  All ended well. And I’m betting that a better checklist and double-checking of numbers will soon be advanced in Sandown. So, an embarrassing event was righted.  Good for them!

I’ve oft said that one person CAN and DOES make a difference here in NH and this is yet another example of someone that said “This doesn’t feel right” and got to work.  I called Linda Brown to get a little more background (she is the lady that moved from the audience to the “witness” table during the video) and find out why.

Gobsmacked – she quoted the NH Constitution – Part 1:

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.  Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.  To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.  The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.  Therefore, any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision.  In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer.  However, this right shall not apply when the challenged governmental action is the subject of a judicial or administrative decision from which there is a right of appeal by statute or otherwise by the parties to that proceeding.

and Article 38:

[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.] A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government.

One person.

“Be Brace – Do Something”.  Methinks she did.

How about you?

 

The post Election Integrity: It Took One Curious Citizen to Overturn This Election Result appeared first on Granite Grok.

Big Biz embracing drag queens as marketing shills seems like a distraction. We’ve mocked Hershey’s and Bud Light, and it looks like Jack Daniels did something similar two years ago, but no one noticed (really) until this week.

Related: Where Men Take Things from Women, and If You Don’t Applaud, You Are a Bigot.

Lost in the pandemic haze (or a drunken pandemic haze)?

JD, unlike Hershey’s – which chose a man portraying a stereotypical caricature of women for International Women’s Day (the actual offense) – thought it was being inclusive.

 

The whiskey makers said at the time that it was “a bold new experience—for both the queens and their hosts,” while Lauren Richmond, then-brand manager for Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Fire, noted the campaign “reaffirms our commitment to the LGBTQ+ community” despite being an “unexpected partnership.”

 

More like fishing for style points, if I had to guess, but it has been 22 months since the folks from Lynchburg, Tennesee, embraced Drag. Getting riled up about it now seems silly, but it’s not.

 

“Jack Daniel’s gets drag culture—which is all about celebrating individuality and inviting others to accept you as you are,” Trinity the Tuck, one of the drag queens involved in the campaign, said in a statement.

 

Drag has a strong connection to the LGBT movement, which is not the problem. The militant activists front the “band,” and the more recent “normalization” of the transgender agenda has become the tip of the spear for the radical among them. To be fair, many in the LGB portion would divorce the ‘T.” They oppose grooming kids, drugging them, mutilating them, and engaging in the government school equivalent of ‘transition’ “therapy” without parental knowledge or consent. Porn in schools is a no-go for them as well. They want to be left alone to live with their choices and equally free to object, but that’s not allowed, not even for them, and that’s the problem.

People who were incapable of living with who they are or how they were born won’t let you be who you are or how you were born. You have to accept them, use their pronouns, and celebrate their weird hobbies, and any objection is discrimination or bigotry. My knee-jerk reaction is to double down on the free speech they suppress. Some folks like to boycott. If that’s who you are, be you.

Related: Drag Queens Refuse to Do Future Events at Library That Featured Anti-Drag Feminist

As for Drag Queens, we’ve long found them an insulting vaudevillian stereotype of sex-show performance art that has no place around children. Adding a storybook in a library setting doesn’t change that. The only Drag Queen story I’m interested in is the one about why men (often) gaudily dressed in clown-caricatures costumes of women feel the need to be around your children. Oh, and why do Progressive politicians and activists want that too?

It’s creepy. And yes, I know the answer, but they need to say it out loud, and on that point, the day before the JD Drag PR hit my inbox, I stumbled across a piece from Seth Barron titled, “In America’s grim funhouse reality, the confusion is the message.” It’s short, to the point, and worth your time, but I must share this bit about Drag Queens.

 

I think of clowns, and the way they invariably cause at least some children to cry, whenever I see pictures of Drag Story Hours. It’s always the same thing—a few heavily made-up drag queens posing as grotesque caricatures of women, looking basically like a gay misogynist’s nightmare fantasy of a devouring, castrating bitch-mother; some librarians or other regime functionaries silently taking attendance; a bunch of downmarket loser parents trying desperately to opt out of their loathed cishet whiteness and score some cool points which they hope to roll over into the coming social credit system; and, finally and most importantly, a handful of children looking confused and bewildered.

 

And…

 

There is no connection between drag and literacy. The primary argument I’ve heard is that it teaches tolerance—but for what and for whom? Drag is not an identity; it’s a job or a hobby. Drag has been used in university seminars as a metaphor for the performativity of gender, but that’s a little recondite for the 5-year-olds in the average Drag Story Hour. Nobody, not even the most pronoun-forward among us, calls drag a gender.

 

Drag is cosplay. If you are an adult, and that’s your thing, either as a performer or a consumer, be you. But injecting it into the lives of children is weird and creepy and more about preparing the battle space of their minds for every other paradox of the progressive project.

• Supposedly pro-black policies keep people of color trapped in poverty.
• Anti-crime agendas that increase crime, especially violent crime.
• Pro-women priorities that alienate and risk the safety of women.
• Their Economic policies wreck the economy.
• The Left’s Immigration policies destroy the benefits the immigrants came here to enjoy.
• Public health policy that is bad for public health.
• Their Education monopolies churn out kids who can’t read or do the math.

As for Drag, Seth Barron notes, it is a hobby. Drag Queens do not spend all day and night, 24/7/365, in Drag. The idea itself is a lie. It is a persona they do when it suits them. For some, it is an occupation. For others, a side hustle. And then some just like to dress up as women. But in every instance, it’s temporary, fleeting, transitory (see what I did there?). They can walk away from it. But progressives and radials are using it to inculcate children with confusing images they then use to push them toward a gender transition that is not temporary.

You can’t just walk away from it.

There’s no setting it aside. De-transitioning does not make you who you were before, especially if you were coerced into surgery. But the doctors and therapists get to keep their money and maybe make more for the return trip. “Experts” cash in at the expense of culture war casualties who – when they speak out, have their story or struggle diminished or denounced as if they have no right to be that person.

Drag used to be a fringe hobby. These days it is used to normalize a culture that confuses kids, many of whom will commit suicide because of who someone else wanted them to be. Pawns expended in a political pursuit children are no more mentally able to understand than the clowns paraded before them.

It’s ghastly, and it needs to stop.

Be you, but if you are a drag queen, be you in front of adults, please, and if the adults don’t get it or don’t like it, that is them being them. f you can’t accept that, move along. As for Big Biz, you are not being inclusive or accepting. You are fomenting a war whose victims are children.

 

 

The post Promoting “Drag Queens” Is Not About “Inviting Others To Accept You as You Are” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Back on March 22nd (posted on March 24th), I sent an RSA 91-A to SAU 92 / Hinsdale asking for their Public School Library card catalog. Their response was received on March 28th (posted on March 31st), in which they effectively said, “No, we’re not sending it. Here are the library links – look it up yourself.”

Seems to be a standard answer lately.  I replied back and said, “Insufficient – a Requester cannot be made to do their own work; the Responder has to provide the requested information.” I figured I could be patient, to a point, and that they were going to consult with their legal counsel and then get back to me. That “to a point” time period just ran out.

I just sent them a reminder by calling Jodie Holmquist directly in the chance of smoothing things over.

Straight to voice mail.

So, I sent another reminder and CC’d the two ladies she had earlier CC’d:

—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Jodie Holmquist” <jholmquist@hnhsd.org>
Cc “Kim M. Caron” <kcaron@hnhsd.org>; “Maria A. Webb” <mwebb@hnhsd.org>
Date 4/7/2023 9:59:32 AM
Subject Re[2]: Right-to-Know Request

Good morning,

Jodie, I just left you a voice mail concerning the lack of a response to my email and your refusal to supply the lawfully demanded governmental records. Thus, I will keep this brief.

I have waited patiently for your response to my email. Ghosting me doesn’t help your situation.  I have lawyers that write for me and they will be happy to assist in this matter IF NECESSARY if you continue to ignore my RSA 91-A demand.

I’m also sure that you have contacted your legal counsel at this point. Have them read to you Clauses 7 and 8 of RSA 91-A, especially the part concerning being personally responsible for civil penalties and legal fees.

And now, Kim and Marie, you will be part of this.

All I’m asking for a list of books commonly referred to as “the card catalog” which your library management system, Destiny, can create in a one button operation.

Your call.

-Skip

It is now up to them. Let’s see if they decide to follow the law or go rogue.

Oh, and I called the School Board Chair, Holly Kennedy. Had to leave a voicemail there as well.

 

The post Hinsdale School District SAU92 – Ghosting Me Will Get You Nowhere Edition … appeared first on Granite Grok.

In the grips of Easter Weekend, it seems appropriate to reflect on what has happened to our country created out of a need for people from Europe to have a safe place to practice their religion. We were not a nation of one religion but one based on the principles of Christianity.

We needed never to lose the perspective of being mentored by a higher being. I am a Mason, and one of the prerequisites before climbing the degrees of Masonry is acknowledging your belief in a supreme being. To me, that is done to keep you from the goal of assuming excessive power. Having a Higher Power to look to is a humbling experience. You only need to look to the highest spot in Washington, D.C., to see the message from our forefathers. The Washington Monument rises 555′ above D.C. and, by law, will always be the tallest structure in our Capitol. At its peak may be the most significant message from our founders.

When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848, many items were deposited, including the Holy Bible. When completed nearly fifty years later, in 1899, an aluminum pyramid was placed atop the obelisk. On the pyramid were engraved the words LAUS DEO, which translates to “Praise to God.” Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy:” One Nation, Under God.”

We have weakened our grip on religion and spirituality throughout our short history. We have removed God from our schools, and there are always efforts to remove the words “In God We Trust” from our lexicon. Our wrongful priorities were exposed during the Pandemic in 2021 when churches and places of worship were padlocked. Places of prayer were off limits while Walmarts and Targets were designated as essential.

We must review our current body of work and hold it against our fundamental beliefs. We need to retire the words Racist and Racism. These words conjure hatred and have become the go-to reason for our ills by people too weak to form a logical debate on any subject. The terms have become a weapon for people who would rather cancel you than debate. These words are used to divide our country, not unite her, because a weaker country is easier to control. Control and power are the lifeblood of the ruling class. This mission to control the masses is why indoctrinating our children and teaching them to hate our history begins at such an early age.

Movements like BLM or LGBTQIA+ claim to be for inclusion and diversity, while isolating these groups and seeking special considerations and reparations does precisely the opposite. The Trans movement is elevating to the most dangerous threat to this country. Coaching gender reassignment to our elementary-aged children, blurring the difference between men and women, and tearing apart families by placing educators above parents makes no sense to logically God Fearing people.

There are signs of hope. Churches are filling once again. Young people are holding weeklong prayer meetings instead of protests. The loud Progressives who openly hate our country are identified as loud but the minority. Conservatives who love God and this great country must be equally loud. We must keep spreading our beliefs and stay strong enough to face opposition. We can win this battle and regain our land, but we must remain patient, steadfast and remember we have Right and a Higher Power on our side.

Happy Easter and Passover Season and Laus DEO.

The post A Weekend Of Reflection appeared first on Granite Grok.

Since well before we eagerly leaped into the world of high technology, we gave very little thought to the possibility that someday we would find ourselves at a perilous fork in the road as a society, culture, and country.

ICYMI – Original Publication Date-  April 2015

We began to see diminishing returns on our investment in the confidence that the Fourth Amendment and its prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures were sacrosanct.

One fork led to the God-given Rights in the Constitution. The other fork led to neighboring Enhanced Security. There appeared to be no third road that would enable us to arrive at both places. What we believed to be within the private domain, protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of illegal search and seizure, was turned on its ear as early as 1967. It impacted our First and Fifth Amendment rights as well, primarily free speech and the ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment when we had no desire to contribute to our own prosecution.

It was in 1967, well before that fateful day in 1976 when Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak would build the first prototype of a personal computer, that SCOTUS ruled in Katz v. United States that, “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office,
is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” [1]

Previously, one would think that having a friend come over for dinner would render all discussions and exchanges of papers, etc., protected. And what of that private discussion you had at work, the one during which you were told you were getting a raise but admonished from telling anyone? That, too, we thought private. Not so, said the high court, the third branch of the government the Framers paid the least amount of attention to. It was tasked with weighing cases before it as if the Constitution were cast in granite.

It was in the 1960s, during which the phrase, “If it feels good do it,” would become a cultural norm, that somehow the liberal justices decided that the Constitution was an evolving document, subject to change with society. Wrong, in my view. The meaning and intent of the framers weren’t to allow for evolution.

This decision created a rule known as “third-party doctrine.” [2][3] It holds “that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,” a concept that haunts us far more today than it did back in the 1960s. Today, computers are ubiquitous and the majority of the nation’s population suffers from a pandemic of cyber addiction.

Katz would prove itself the foundation of future court rulings that now take us down two different legal pathways. According to Legislative Attorney Richard M. Tompson II, who authored The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine, [4] “[T]he Court has applied the third-party doctrine to two main sets of cases. In one, the Court has held that people do not have a reasonable expectation that a person with whom they are communicating will not later reveal that conversation to the police. In the second, the Court extended this doctrine to hold that people are not entitled to Fourth Amendment safeguards for records given to a third party or data generated as part of a person’s business transactions with a third party.”

In two of the most prominent third-party cases, Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller, the Court held that government access to telephone calling records and bank records, respectively, were not protected by the Fourth Amendment. [5][6]

Traveling through time, we arrive at 2015, and we have, on top of those cases, the PATRIOT Act, which most emphatically affects our rights. Try dressing up as a jihadi terrorist with a fake bomb vest and walking to a Halloween party only to find yourself picked up, turned over to the feds as a terrorist, thrown into a hellhole (or Gitmo) without any rights, not even the right to a phone call or have an attorney.

There are ways for us to have both freedom and cybersecurity. There have been rumblings in Congress about drawing up legislation to overrule the “third person doctrine” and to repeal or change the PATRIOT Act, but those cries are being drowned out by the terror threats of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and a multitude of other terror groups. With their threats, together with those of Iran, North Korea and the “silent battle” we are fighting with the likes of China in a currency war, and Russia run by a lunatic, gaining back our freedoms doesn’t seem possible.

Of course, if we elect someone with a backbone to reside in the White House and manage to keep GOP majorities in Congress (hardly a sure thing), we just might be on the receiving end of rights restoration. But as long as Obama is president, I can assure you, your rights will continue to erode due to various odd edicts emanating from the president’s phone and pen.

 

 

CITATIONS
1. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
2. Ibid
3. Richard M. Thompson II The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine (2014, June 5) Congressional Research Service Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43586.pdf
4. Ibid.
5. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). 2 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979)
6. Richard M. Thompson II The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine (2014, June 5) Congressional Research Service Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43586.pdf

 

The post Privacy vs. Security appeared first on Granite Grok.

The budget passed by the nominally GOP New Hampshire House represented a CAPITULATION to the Communists (nominally Democrats). Among the lowlights … cutting back on school choice, while pumping even more money into funding DEI and CRT (the public education bureaucracy); continuing Obamacare Medicaid expansion; and massively increasing spending, according to Rep. J.R. Hoell by an obscene $1,900.00 per person.

And, predictably, the NHGOP is claiming that this CAPITULATION is a victory and is presenting an award to Sherm Packard … the figurehead Speaker who recently turned a blind eye to “hate speech” AND HATE ACTS against Christians for, AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP, “losing gracefully”:

Tell that to all the children and parents looking to escape from the indoctrination in CRT an DEI in public schools … “yes we failed you, but we did it with both strength and grace. Now send us more money.”

The post The NHGOP Rewards Failure … It’s All About “Losing Gracefully” appeared first on Granite Grok.

No one in Oregon is prohibiting Jessica Bates from exercising her religious rights, but they are denying her equal access to state-managed child welfare programs, including adoption because she’s a Christian.

The agency refuses to place a child unless “individuals seeking to adopt … agree to “respect, accept, and support … the sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression” of any child the department could place in an applicant’s home.”

 

“Oregon’s policy amounts to an ideological litmus test: people who hold secular or ‘progressive’ views on sexual orientation and gender identity are eligible to participate in child welfare programs, while people of faith with religiously informed views are disqualified because they don’t agree with the state’s orthodoxy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, director of the ADF Center for Conscience Initiatives. “The government can’t exclude certain communities of faith from foster care and adoption services because the state doesn’t like their particular religious beliefs.”

 

Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit in Federal court.

 

“Oregon’s policy makes a sweeping claim that all persons who hold certain religious beliefs—beliefs held by millions of Americans from diverse religious faiths—are categorically unfit to care for children,” said ADF Legal Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “That’s simply not true. Oregon is putting its political agenda above the needs of countless children who would be happy to grow up in a loving, Christian home like Jessica’s. We urge the court to remind the state of its constitutional and moral obligations and reaffirm Jessica’s First Amendment right to live out her faith without being penalized by the government.”

 

I’m no lawyer, and I don’t play one on the internet, but I’m not convinced there is a clear-cut first amendment conflict. Congress shall make no law true, and the 14th Amendment applies that restriction to the states, but denying an adoption application doesn’t interfere with her ability to exercise her faith. No one is stopping her from being a Christian. That was why I opened with the question of equal access under the law.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that neither states nor the Federal Government may exclude individuals or organizations from access to programs, grants, funding, or resources based on religious beliefs. That idea is rooted in First Amendment Protections with the 14th Amendment application of equal protection or equal rights under the law (at least, I think it does).

Put differently, to apply force discriminately (denial of rights permitted to others) creates state-sanctioned pretense based on religion, which is prohibited.  That still sounds swiss-cheesy to me, as in full of holes, and while I feel like I’m on the right track, I’ve simply failed to articulate it properly.

As ADF notes, Oregon has created an ideological litmus test that millions of people of faith around the country could not pass. And while the state can deny taxpayer-funded benefits to individuals based on a wide range of factors, faith can’t be one of them.

Oregon can have a gender identity rule, but it can’t enforce it on these terms. If a court agrees, we should expect the state to come back with new rules – assuming they do not already exist – that label any parent or guardian who questions matters of gender or sexual identity as guilty of child abuse which, ironically, is how most people would characterize drugged and mutilated children sacrificed to the secular gods who frame the belief systems in the Oregon Department of Human Services.

 

HT | ADF Legal

The post Oregon Won’t Let Christians Adopt Children appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s long past time that we stopped enticing deranged people to shoot children in schools. School “gun-free zones” make sick, evil people confident they can get the revenge and/or fame they crave.

Politicians, celebrities, banks, government buildings, etc., are protected by trained armed people. I’d rather we protect schoolchildren. The only way to protect them is with responsible, trained, armed people embedded in the schools.

Unfortunately, Democrat politicians are more interested in ideologically driven anti-gun laws, which only harass law-abiding citizens, than in actually saving children’s lives.

Anti-gun laws don’t stop criminals. If outlawing guns worked, then Chicago and California would be our safest city and state.  If universal background checks would reduce school shootings, advocates would present a long list of shootings that they would have prevented. They can’t.

Even if we took all guns away from people, guns would easily flow into our country via Biden’s open border. Bad people do bad things; let’s deter them from attacking schools.

Most murderers have either a history of violence or mental illness or both; they shouldn’t have access to guns. Parents, mental health professionals, and police must treat this seriously and realistically; they must ensure that all violent people, including youths, are put on the NCIC database so at least they can’t purchase guns legally.

Finally, officials and the media must stop giving these deranged people the fame they crave; their names should never be disclosed.

Anti-gun laws are intended to make naive people believe useful action will be taken. But children will continue to be killed until our society understands, as undesirable as it seems to some, the necessity of protecting schools with responsible, trained, armed and embedded protectors.

The post It’s Long Past Time That We Stopped Enticing Deranged People To Shoot Children appeared first on Granite Grok.

America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), was adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, but did not take effect until ratified by all 13 states on March 1, 1781.

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

It quickly became apparent that this “firm league of friendship” among the States was utterly inadequate to govern our new nation. The impetus to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution began long before the commissioners met in Philadelphia in 1787.

Let’s see how things unfolded on the road to the 1787 Federal Convention, and along the way, we will answer the following questions, such as;

• Was the 1787 Federal Convention a “runaway” convention?
• Did the Framers produce an illegal Constitution?
• What is the original intent of the Article V convention?
• Did James Madison tremble at an Article V Convention being called?
• Is a Constitutional Convention the same as an Article V convention?
• What is a Convention of the States?
• Can an Article V convention be limited?
• What role does Congress play in an Article V convention?
• Has there ever been a Convention of the States?
• Can the state legislatures control their delegates?

The Efforts to Replace the Articles of Confederation with a Better System of Government

In his Vices of the Political System of the United States, April 1787, James Madison provided a few reasons why the Articles of Confederation were unsustainable and needed to be replaced. Madison was preparing a new system of government by studying ancient confederacies to learn from their experience in order to avoid their mistakes. Notes on Ancient and Modern Confederacies , April-June, 1786

The main reason for the failure of the AOC was Article XIII, which made it virtually impossible to amend the Confederation;

“nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

This provision required that any amendment be agreed upon by Congress and approved by all state legislatures. This was found to be impossible as the tiny state of Rhode Island refused to concur on all amendments.

The push for a convention of the states to adopt a new constitution was being advanced within the Continental Congress and with some state legislatures. The following quotes provide irrefutable evidence that a new constitution was the goal of the Framers to preserve the Union.

From Alexander Hamilton to JamesDuane, September 3, 1780

“The first step must be to give Congress powers competent to the public exigencies. This may happen in two ways,…the other by calling immediately a convention of all the states with full authority to conclude finally upon a general confederation,…that the delegates may come possessed of proper sentiments as well as proper authority to give to the meeting. Their commission should include a right of vesting Congress with the whole or a proportion of the unoccupied lands, to be employed for the purpose of raising a revenue, reserving the jurisdiction to the states by whom they are granted.

“The reasons for which I require them to be vested with plenipotentiary authority are that the business may suffer no delay in the execution, and may in reality come to effect. A convention may agree upon a confederation; the states individually hardly ever will. “

Resolution of the New YorkLegislature Calling for a Convention of the States to Revise and Amend theArticles of Confederation, July 20 20, 1782

“Resolved, That it appears to this Legislature, that the aforegoing important Ends, can never be attained by partial Deliberations of the States, separately; but that it is essential to the common Welfare, that there should be as soon as possible a Conference of the Whole on the Subject; and that it would be adviseable for this Purpose, to propose to Congress to recommend, and to each State to adopt the Measure of assembling a general Convention of the States, specially authorised to revise and amend the Confederation, reserving a Right to the respective Legislatures, to ratify their Determinations.”

Henry Knox to Gouverneur Morris, Feb 21, 1783

“In my former letters I mentioned that men of reflection and principle were tired of the imbecillities of the present government—but I did not point out any substitute. It would be prudent to form the plan of a new house, before We pull down the old one—The subject has not been sufficiently discused, as yet in publick, to decide precisely, on the form of the edifice. It is out of all question, that the foundation, must be of republican principles; but so modified and wrought together, that whatever shall be erected thereon, should be durable, & efficient—I speak entirely of the federal government, or what would be better one government instead of an association of governments.”

George Washington to Rev.William Gordon July 8 1783

“It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism,… great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People,…

For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation…”

Continental Congress UnsubmittedResolution Calling for a Convention to Amend the Articles of Confederation,July 1783

“Therefore Resolved that it be earnestly recommended to the several states to appoint a convention to meet at __on the__day of__with full powers to revise the confederation and to adopt and propose such alterations as to them shall appear necessary to be finally approved or rejected by the states respectively—and that a Committee of be appointed to prepare an address upon the subject.”

Henry Knox to Gouverneur Morris, Feb 21, 1783

“The army generally have always reprobated the idea of being thirteen armies. Their ardent desires have been to be one continental body looking up to one sovereign. This would have prevented much heart-burning at the partialities which have been practiced by the respective States. They know of no way of bringing this about, at a period when peace appears to be in full view. Certain it is they are good patriots and would forward anything that would tend to produce Union, and a permanent general constitution;…but they must be directed in the mode by the proper authority.

It is a favorite toast in the army, ‘A hoop to the barrel,’ or ‘Cement to the Union.’ America will have fought and bled to little purpose if the powers of government shall be insufficient to preserve the peace, and this must be the case without general funds. As the present Constitution is so defective, why do not you great men call the people together and tell them so; that is, to have a convention of the States to form a better Constitution? This appears to us, who have a superficial view only, to be the more efficacious remedy. Let something be done before a peace takes place, or we shall be in a worse situation than we were at the commencement of the war.”

George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United, Volume II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885, page 187-189

On March 13, 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was deputed by Congress along with members Gorham and Grayson to the New Jersey Legislature for their refusal to comply with the requisition of the former Congress. Pinckney delivered the message in which he stated: “If New Jersey conceives herself oppressed under the present confederation, let her, through her delegates in congress, state to them the oppression she complains of, and urge the calling of a general convention of the states for the purpose of increasing the powers of the federal government and rendering it more adequate for the ends for which it was instituted;”

A few months later, Pinckney continued his drive in Congress for a convention to revise the powers of the Confederation, but to no avail:

“Congress must be invested with greater powers, or the federal government must fall. It is, therefore, necessary for congress either to appoint a convention for that purpose, or by requisition to call on the states for such powers as are necessary to enable it to administer the federal government.”

Pinckney had no success in calling a convention and requested a grand committee to begin working on amendments to the Articles of Confederation. He was appointed chairman of the sub-committee, and drafted seven amendments which were reported to Congress on August 7

Henry Knox to George Washington, January 14, 1787

“Notwithstanding the contra[r]y opinions respecting the proposed convention, were I to presume to give my own judgement, it would be in favor of the convention, and I sincerely hope that it may be generally attended—I do not flatter myself that the public mind is so sufficiently informed and harmonized, as that an effective government would be adopted by the convention, and proposed to the United States,, or that if this were practicable, that the people of the several states, are sufficiently prepared to receive it—But it seems to be highly important that some object should be held forth to the people, as a remedy for the disorders of the body politic—were this done by so respectable a set of men as could be sent to the convention, even if it were not so perfect in the first instance, as it might be afterwards, yet it would be a stage in the business, and mens minds would be exercised on the subject, and appreciated towards a good Constitution—were strong events to arise between this and the time of meeting, enforcing the necessity of a vigorous government, it would be a preparation which might be embraced by the convention to propose at once efficient system.”

Our next stop before we arrive at the Convention in Philadelphia to adopt a new Constitution will be at the Annapolis Convention of 1786. A convention limited to the subject of commercial trade.

 

Kenn Quinn | All Things Artiel V

The post On the Road to the 1787 Federal Convention to Adopt a New Constitution appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Rules for thee and not for we” became a cultural critique during the pandemic.  A mask-less governor Gavin Newsome was seen eating at an elite restaurant within twenty-four hours of issuing a stay-at-home order under a state-wide mask mandate.  A gubernatorial sibling and CNN celebrity host Chris Cuomo was seen mask-less and belligerent outside his vacation home after sanctimoniously scolding watchers for selfishly not getting vaccinated and reminding them to stay locked-down in their homes.  The former president Barack Obama held a birthday party at his mansion in Martha’s Vineyard where the staff were forced to mask while the celebrity political crowd was not.  This list isn’t even close to exhaustive as much as it is exhausting to realize these high society hypocrites actually exist and wield power over so many of us.

More recently we’ve seen the unspoken and asymmetrical rules of the culture clash in two of the biggest stories of 2023.  The first, former award winning Rolling Stone contributor, turned independent journalist Matt Taibbi, was given access by Elon Musk to report on the collusion between government agencies and Twitter executives.  The Twitter Files revealed the DOJ, members of congress and even the White House issued directives to Twitter for violating American’s first amendment rights, while also obfuscating apparently criminal activity conducted by major pharmaceutical companies who had withheld important data regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.  The ad hoc congressional sub-committee looking into the weaponization of the government called Taibbi to testify regarding his reporting on the Twitter files. In a moment of unparalleled irony Taibbi suddenly got a house call from the I.R.S.  The other irony?  Taibbiis a self-proclaimed progressive who votes Democrat.  Here he was in the cross-hairs of the machine that is willing to eat its own if only to save face by intimidation.  They left doesn’t care if lady justice is blind, they want you to pretend you are instead.

This week we’ve seen perhaps the most egregious instance of lady justice no longer being blind.  Forty-fifth president Donald Trump has been indicted on what even many on the left are seeing as a weak legal case by a Manhattan District Attorney who is famous for not prosecuting actual crimes.  D.A. Alvin Bragg is reportedly dropping 52% of all felony charges to misdemeanors yet is seeking to take a previously failed misdemeanor account and increase it to a felony charge for president Trump.  This lopsided approach to applying the law has many wondering why the favoritism toward even violent criminals but preferential punishment toward, in Trump’s case, an essentially victimless crime if it was a crime at all?

If lady justice can see at all she has a jaundiced left eye scrutinizing every movement of her right eye.  Her scales have been made to lean heavily in favor of the sinister side heralding a punishing disadvantage to its dexterous counterpart.  If her good side was her left side which famously called for tolerance why does it seem to only be offered to all things on the left?  Why are BLM riots that destroy billions called “mostly peaceful protests” yet a mostly peaceful protest at the capitol is called an “insurrection”? Why are libraries opening their doors for drag queen story hour yet refusing Kirk Cameron or Matt Walsh’s innocuous children’s books?  The ghost of Rod Serling wants to know.

Meet 1960s critical theorists and Marxist social philosophers Herbert Marcuse, Barrington Moore Jr. and Robert Paul Wolff. In 1969 the Boston Beacon Press published a book of essays titled “A Critique of Pure Tolerance” featuring musings from each in regard to how their Marxist revolutionaries should view tolerance.

As is typical of Marxist writings each essay takes many thousands of words to say what could easily be said in a few sentences.  This deliberate tactic of these narcissistic sophists is how they essentially hypnotize the reader through linguistic legerdemain using a few key phrases and ideas wrapped in hyper emotional or hyper intellectual word salad to essentially manipulate the reader into feeling oppressed while also feeling called to champion the cause of taking down the oppressors.

Recognizing the need to clarify the boundaries of tolerance and establish favorable rules of engagement the writers set about explaining why tolerance should be granted to the left – even at the level of tolerating criminal activity, like riots, assaults, or theft posing as reparative equity.  Conversely they maintain virtually all political activity from the right should be vehemently opposed with what Marcuse describes as “repressive tolerance”.  Essentially, they want tolerance for we but not for thee.

Consider Marcuse’s opening paragraph:

“THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period–a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.”

In other words “Blah, blah, blah…tolerance is oppression” when it allows conservatism to continue to have influence over public policy.

Don’t believe me? His friends on Wikipedia clarify:

Marcuse argues that genuine tolerance does not permit support for “repression”, since doing so ensures that marginalized voices will remain unheard. He characterizes tolerance of repressive speech as “inauthentic”. Instead, he advocates a form of tolerance that is intolerant of repressive (namely right-wing) political movements:

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

In another word game he refers to it throughout the essay as “liberating tolerance” rather than “repressive tolerance”.  This allows him to put his reader’s focus on what they need to do to be liberated or set free from the repressive policies of conservatism. Which policies exactly?  We have to read his essay “Eros and Civilization” to find it’s those that limit his erotic fantasies:

“He regarded the realization of man’s erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity, which inspired the utopias of Jerry Rubin and others.”

In case you wondered why the big push to assimilate BLM, LGBTQ, DEI and ESG agenda’s into culture, this is why.  Marcuse is referred to as “the father of the new left”.  He also wrote about fomenting revolutionary activity in “the ghetto population”:

“The ghetto population of the United States constitutes such a force. Confined to small areas of living and dying, it can be more easily organized and directed. Moreover, located in the core cities of the country, the ghettos form natural geographical centers from which the struggle can be mounted against targets of vital economic and political importance; in this respect, the ghettos can be compared with the faubourgs of Paris in the eighteenth century, and their location makes for spreading and “contagious” upheavals.”

It’s writings like these that inspired his student Angela Davis from Brandeis to aid and abet the murder of superior court judge Harold Haley.  This too was tolerated because, hey, it’s part of the revolution.

It’s a putative revolution that uses lofty language and calls for social justice to essentially justify its progenitor’s sexual desires and deviancy.

The post Trump, Taibbi and Repressive Tolerance appeared first on Granite Grok.