Manchester NH House Rep/Lobbyist Alissandra Murray has occasionally attracted the attention of our authors and commenters. Last week, she is reported to have used the block feature on her X account, which is as good a time as any to revisit this.

If you communicate the people’s business there, can you block people whose responses you dislike or with whom you disagree?

According to both circuit court and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, “officials who post about work-related topics on their personal social media accounts can be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of constituents by blocking their access or deleting their critical comments.”

Work-related means political communications.

I’ve issued similar warnings in the past that include not just Dems but Republicans and Libertarians. This was inevitable, and this latest 9-0 first amendment decision sets the groundwork. Suppose you discuss your political agenda on measures, bills, issues, or other business of a town, county, state, or federal office. In that case, the public must be able to comment, or you are violating their First Amendment rights.

Rep. Murray, while not the only offender, is using this platform for political communication.

In Murray’s defense, political activity (speech) is not the means by which a potential violation of constituents’ rights is measured. Alissandra is still a free person and citizen with the same rights as the rest of us. She can speak as an individual and is not required to let just anyone engage her content. She could remark frequently and at length on a wide range of topics, especially on groups “owned” and moderated by others, without the moderator being obligated to allow the speech of dissenter others or ensuring they have access to respond.

How do we know the difference?

After a more detailed review, the Court’s standard measures whether “the official both (1) possessed the actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts.”

It seems reasonable to suggest that Murray has no real authority, even as a House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee clerk. Still, she does have a vote in both the body and the committee. The opportunity to speak with authority on matters of interest to the state is not impossible.

This is also true for every other elected or appointed individual, especially at the county or local level, where their position makes them the executor or manager of policy that directly affects citizens and taxpayers.

It is not about whether you think you have authority but whether someone else can convince a court of it; in this case, the safest path is to allow the communication and ignore it or respond to it at your discretion.

In a free society with a First Amendment, your inconvenience (or umbrage) is the lesser concern than the right of others to engage you in political debate on matters where you have influence.

Unless the state can use force (because of the content shared), meaning it violates some existing law or statute (not the ones that exist in your head), my advice is to shut up and take it. I get that this won’t be popular with anyone. Leaving certain content has the appearance of consent or allowing them to use your platform for their speech.

So what?

If you’re right and they are wrong, ignore them. If you can’t do that, prove them wrong or get a proxy to engage them and move along. If they are unhinged, screen grab it, put it in a folder, and use it against them or the people they support.

Blocking people may not explicitly violate their First Amendment rights, but it makes you look like an incapable, incompetent coward.

I know, hours in the day. You don’t get paid to deal with this crap, but Alissandra does. She gets paid a salary by a third-party activist group.

She’s just being a coward.

 

The post To Alissandra Murray and Everyone Else in Office Blocking People on Social Media … appeared first on Granite Grok.

The New Hampshire General Court (i.e., our legislature) has reached “crossover.” The House has acted on all its bills and has started to deal with Senate Bills. The Senate has done the converse.

I have crunched the numbers – i.e., the voting records of 2024 through crossover – to determine objectively which members are RINOs – Republicans In Name Only.

I looked at every vote in which Republicans voted opposite Democrats. More specifically, I looked at all votes in which a supermajority (80%) of Republicans voted opposite a majority of Democrats. I ignored votes where both sides voted the same. A RINO vote is when a Republican votes with Democrats against a supermajority of Republicans.

The House has had 216 roll calls so far this year. On 21 of those, the Rs and Ds both voted the same. Those votes were ignored. On 15 other votes, Rs were divided, e.g. RC #137 had Rs voting 72%-28%. Those votes were ignored as not meeting the 80% threshold. The remaining 180 votes were scored as potential RINO votes. As it happens, 100% of Rs voted together – i.e., none of the Rs voted with the Dems – on many of those RCs, so there were no RINO votes on those RCs.

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

Almost every Rep at one time or another casts a vote the same as the Democrats. One example is when a Republican votes against the budget because it is too large, while the Democrats vote against it because they think it is too small. Thankfully, such votes are not common.

Most Republicans only rarely vote with Democrats against other Republicans. There were 37 who scored a perfect 0%. Looking at all Republicans, the median RINO score was 1.7%, meaning that, on average, they voted with Democrats only 1.7% of the time. 80% of Republicans scored lower than 4.7%; 90% scored lower than 8%.

There were 11 Republicans who voted more than 10% of the time against fellow Republicans. Clearly, they are out of mainstream Republicanism. Even more outside of the mainstream were 4 Republicans who voted more than 20% of the time with Democrats against Republicans. Worst as usual was Dan Wolf.

	RINO score	RINO votes
Wolf, Dan (R, Newbury)	69.7%	108
Bordes, Mike (R, Laconia)	31.0%	48
Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	24.5%	37
Thackston, Dick (R, Troy)	22.6%	35
Coker, Matthew (R, Meredith)	17.1%	30
Bickford, David (R, New Durham)	14.7%	25
O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	13.1%	8
Pearson, Mark (R, Hampstead)	12.2%	22
Ankarberg, Aidan (R, Rochester)	11.7%	21
Mason, James (R, Franklin)	11.1%	15
Proulx, Mark (R, Manchester)	11.0%	17

Here is the full list:

	RINO score	RINO votes
Wolf, Dan (R, Newbury)	69.7%	108
Bordes, Mike (R, Laconia)	31.0%	48
Guthrie, Joseph (R, Hampstead)	24.5%	37
Thackston, Dick (R, Troy)	22.6%	35
Coker, Matthew (R, Meredith)	17.1%	30
Bickford, David (R, New Durham)	14.7%	25
O’Hara, Travis (R, Belmont)	13.1%	8
Pearson, Mark (R, Hampstead)	12.2%	22
Ankarberg, Aidan (R, Rochester)	11.7%	21
Mason, James (R, Franklin)	11.1%	15
Proulx, Mark (R, Manchester)	11.0%	17
Nagel, David (R, Gilmanton)	9.8%	15
Milz, David (R, Derry)	9.7%	14
Boyd, Bill (R, Merrimack)	9.5%	17
Sytek, John (R, Salem)	9.0%	16
Bogert, Steven (R, Laconia)	8.9%	16
Pratt, Kevin (R, Raymond)	8.3%	15
Hunt, John (R, Rindge)	8.3%	14
Crawford, Karel (R, Moultonborough)	8.0%	11
King, Seth (R, Whitefield)	7.8%	14
Pearson, Stephen (R, Derry)	7.8%	14
Packard, Sherman (R, Londonderry)	7.5%	3
Foote, Charles (R, Derry)	7.4%	12
Roy, Terry (R, Deerfield)	7.3%	13
Vandecasteele, Susan (R, Salem)	7.1%	11
Phinney, Brandon (R, Rochester)	7.0%	11
Trottier, Douglas (R, Belmont)	6.9%	7
Healey, Robert (R, Merrimack)	6.7%	12
Rhodes, Jennifer (R, Winchester)	6.7%	12
McDonnell, Valerie (R, Salem)	6.1%	11
Yokela, Josh (R, Fremont)	6.1%	11
Gerhard, Jason (R, Northfield)	5.8%	10
Fedolfi, Jim (R, Hillsborough)	5.4%	9
Cole, Brian (R, Manchester)	5.3%	7
Kuttab, Katelyn (R, Windham)	5.2%	9
Nelson, Jodi (R, Derry)	5.0%	9
Popovici-Muller, Daniel (R, Windham)	5.0%	9
Mooney, Maureen (R, Merrimack)	4.9%	8
Testerman, Dave (R, Franklin)	4.9%	7
Harley, Tina (R, Seabrook)	4.7%	6
MacDonald, John (R, Wolfeboro)	4.5%	8
Plett, Fred (R, Goffstown)	4.5%	8
Tierney, James (R, Northumberland)	4.5%	6
Davis, Arnold (R, Milan)	4.4%	8
Lascelles, Richard (R, Litchfield)	4.0%	7
Rochefort, David (R, Littleton)	4.0%	7
Ball, Lorie (R, Salem)	3.9%	7
Janvrin, Jason (R, Seabrook)	3.9%	7
Stapleton, Walter (R, Claremont)	3.9%	7
Brown, Carroll (R, Bristol)	3.6%	6
Dolan, Tom (R, Londonderry)	3.6%	6
Katsakiores, Phyllis (R, Derry)	3.4%	6
Ouellet, Mike (R, Colebrook)	3.4%	6
Seidel, Sheila (R, Goffstown)	3.4%	6
Cahill, Tim (R, Raymond)	3.3%	6
Donnelly, Tanya (R, Salem)	3.3%	6
Emerick, Tracy (R, Hampton)	3.3%	6
Weyler, Kenneth (R, Kingston)	3.3%	6
Verville, Kevin (R, Deerfield)	3.2%	5
Boehm, Ralph (R, Litchfield)	2.8%	5
Brown, Richard (R, Moultonborough)	2.8%	5
Corcoran, Travis (R, Weare)	2.8%	5
Costable, Michael (R, Freedom)	2.8%	5
Ladd, Rick (R, Haverhill)	2.8%	5
Melvin, Charles (R, Newton)	2.8%	5
Phillips, Emily (R, Fremont)	2.8%	5
Reid, Karen (R, Deering)	2.8%	5
Spilsbury, Walter (R, Charlestown)	2.8%	5
Lundgren, David (R, Londonderry)	2.8%	4
Beaudoin, Richard (R, Gilford)	2.6%	4
Khan, Aboul (R, Seabrook)	2.6%	4
McLean, Mark (R, Manchester)	2.5%	4
Prudhomme-O’Brien, Katherine (R, Derry)	2.4%	4
Simon, Matthew (R, Littleton)	2.3%	4
Cordelli, Glenn (R, Tuftonboro)	2.2%	4
Creighton, Jim (R, Antrim)	2.2%	4
Drye, Margaret (R, Plainfield)	2.2%	4
Ford, Oliver (R, Chester)	2.2%	4
Greeson, Jeffrey (R, Wentworth)	2.2%	4
Kelley, Diane (R, Temple)	2.2%	4
King, Bill (R, Milford)	2.2%	4
Lekas, Tony (R, Hudson)	2.2%	4
MacDonald, Wayne (R, Londonderry)	2.2%	4
Pauer, Diane (R, Brookline)	2.2%	4
Ploszaj, Tom (R, Center Harbor)	2.2%	4
Potenza, Kelley (R, Rochester)	2.2%	4
Santonastaso, Matthew (R, Rindge)	2.2%	4
Seaworth, Brian (R, Pembroke)	2.2%	4
Smith, Jonathan (R, Ossioee)	2.2%	4
Thomas, Douglas (R, Londonderry)	2.2%	4
Tudor, Paul (R, Northwood)	2.2%	4
Walsh, Lilli (R, Hampstead)	2.2%	4
Infantine, William (R, Manchester)	2.1%	3
Panek, Sandra (R, Pelham)	2.0%	3
Andrus, Louise (R, Salisbury)	1.9%	3
Belcher, Mike (R, Wakefield)	1.7%	3
Berry, Ross (R, Manchester)	1.7%	3
Edwards, Jess (R, Auburn)	1.7%	3
Harb, Robert (R, Plaistow)	1.7%	3
Lekas, Alicia (R, Hudson)	1.7%	3
Lewicke, John (R, Mason)	1.7%	3
Lynn, Bob (R, Windham)	1.7%	3
Mannion, Dennis (R, Salem)	1.7%	3
Mannion, Tom (R, Pelham)	1.7%	3
McCarter, Nikki (R, Belmont)	1.7%	3
McConkey, Mark (R, Freedom)	1.7%	3
McGough, Tim (R, Merrimack)	1.7%	3
Notter, Jeanine (R, Merrimack)	1.7%	3
Renzullo, Andrew (R, Hudson)	1.7%	3
Rollins, Skip (R, Newport)	1.7%	3
Spillane, James (R, Deerfield)	1.7%	3
Smith, Steven (R, Charlestown)	1.6%	2
Coulon, Matthew (R, Pike)	1.5%	2
Murphy, Michael (R, Gorham)	1.5%	2
Durkin, Sean (R, Northumberland)	1.4%	2
Cambrils, Jose (R, Loudon)	1.2%	2
Cushman, Leah (R, Weare)	1.2%	2
Smart, Lisa (R, Meredith)	1.2%	2
Sweeney, Joe (R, Salem)	1.2%	2
Abare, Kimberly (R, Pelham)	1.1%	2
Alexander, Joe (R, Goffstown)	1.1%	2
Ammon, Keith (R, New Boston)	1.1%	2
Bailey, Glenn (R, Milton)	1.1%	2
Connor, James (R, Rochester)	1.1%	2
DeSimone, Debra (R, Atkinson)	1.1%	2
Gorski, Ted (R, Bedford)	1.1%	2
Hoell, J.R. (R, Dunbarton)	1.1%	2
Janigian, John (R, Salem)	1.1%	2
Kennedy, Stephen (R, Hudson)	1.1%	2
Kofalt, Jim (R, Wilton)	1.1%	2
McGuire, Carol (R, Epsom)	1.1%	2
McGuire, Dan (R, Epsom)	1.1%	2
Polozov, Yury (R, Hooksett)	1.1%	2
Porcelli, Susan (R, Hampton Falls)	1.1%	2
Post, Lisa (R, Lyndeborough)	1.1%	2
Stone, Jonathan (R, Claremont)	1.1%	2
Vose, Michael (R, Epping)	1.1%	2
Gould, Linda (R, Bedford)	0.9%	1
Pitre, Joseph (R, Farmington)	0.8%	1
Aron, Judy (R, South Acworth)	0.6%	1
Aylward, Deborah (R, Danbury)	0.6%	1
Burnham, Claudine (R, Milton)	0.6%	1
Colcombe, Riché (R, Hillsborough)	0.6%	1
Doucette, Fred (R, Salem)	0.6%	1
Drago, Mike (R, Raymond)	0.6%	1
Dunn, Ron (R, Londonderry)	0.6%	1
Erf, Keith (R, Weare)	0.6%	1
Gagne, Larry (R, Manchester)	0.6%	1
Granger, Michael (R, Milton)	0.6%	1
Hill, Gregory (R, Northfield)	0.6%	1
Horgan, James (R, Farmington)	0.6%	1
Leavitt, John (R, Hooksett)	0.6%	1
Newton, Clifford (R, Rochester)	0.6%	1
Noble, Kristin (R, Bedford)	0.6%	1
Nutting, Zachary (R, Winchester)	0.6%	1
Osborne, Jason (R, Auburn)	0.6%	1
Prout, Andrew (R, Hudson)	0.6%	1
Qualey, James (R, Rindge)	0.6%	1
Quaratiello, Arlene (R, Atkinson)	0.6%	1
Sellers, John (R, Bristol)	0.6%	1
Soti, Julius (R, Windham)	0.6%	1
Tripp, Richard (R, Derry)	0.6%	1
Turcotte, Len (R, Barrington)	0.6%	1
Aures, Cyril (R, Chichester)	0.0%	0
Avellani, Lino (R, Wakefield)	0.0%	0
Bean, Harry (R, Gilford)	0.0%	0
Berezhny, Lex (R, Grafton)	0.0%	0
Bernardy, JD (R, South Hampton)	0.0%	0
Boyd, Stephen (R, Hooksett)	0.0%	0
Brouillard, Jacob (R, Nottingham)	0.0%	0
Comtois, Barbara (R, Center Barnstead)	0.0%	0
Dumais, Russell (R, Gilford)	0.0%	0
Griffin, Gerald (R, Mont Vernon)	0.0%	0
Harrington, Michael (R, Strafford)	0.0%	0
Harvey-Bolia, Juliet (R, Tilton)	0.0%	0
Hobson, Deb (R, East Kingston)	0.0%	0
Kaczynski, Thomas (R, Rochester)	0.0%	0
Kenny, Catherine (R, Hudson)	0.0%	0
Layon, Erica (R, Derry)	0.0%	0
Love, David (R, Derry)	0.0%	0
Mazur, Lisa (R, Weare)	0.0%	0
McMahon, Charles (R, Windham)	0.0%	0
Moffett, Michael (R, Loudon)	0.0%	0
Perez, Kristine (R, Londonderry)	0.0%	0
Peternel, Katy (R, Wolfeboro)	0.0%	0
Piemonte, Tony (R, Sandown)	0.0%	0
Potucek, John (R, Derry)	0.0%	0
See, Alvin (R, Loudon)	0.0%	0
Sheehan, Vanessa (R, Milford)	0.0%	0
Sirois, Shane (R, New Ipswich)	0.0%	0
Summers, James (R, Newton)	0.0%	0
Tenczar, Jeffrey (R, Pelham)	0.0%	0
Terry, Paul (R, Alton)	0.0%	0
True, Chris (R, Sandown)	0.0%	0
Ulery, Jordan (R, Hudson)	0.0%	0
Varney, Peter (R, Alton)	0.0%	0
Wallace, Scott (R, Danville)	0.0%	0
Walsh, Thomas (R, Hooksett)	0.0%	0
Wherry, Robert (R, Hudson)	0.0%	0
Wood, Clayton (R, Pittsfield)	0.0%	0

The post 2024 RINO Report Card (Through Crossover) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Joe Biden stood at the podium, looked into the camera, and with his strongest demeanor, said, “Don’t” to Iran. Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin took up the verbal sword and uttered the same demand to Iran, “Don’t.” Well, we saw throughout the night from Saturday into Sunday what Iran thinks of the warnings of our Big 3 Dream Team.

They did not go to the microphone but to the trigger and said to Israel, America, and the rest of the Free World, “We Did.”

It took hours for the slow-moving drones, IBMs, and cruise missiles to travel from Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to their target, Israel. Nearly 300 projectiles were launched at the small country of Israel. Because of the sophisticated Israeli defense system and the help of their allies, they managed to intercept 99% of the airborne weapons before they could reach their targets. Iran’s mission to inflict harm on Israel was a failure, but Iran had to see what the outcome would be, so what was the real purpose of this show of aggression?

First, the claim of this being the first attack by Iran on Israel has to be qualified. Iran has been supporting, if not manipulating, Hamas and Hezbollah since this conflict began on October 7. The only difference is the attack, this time, came directly from the territory of Iran. The apparent goal of Iran is to destabilize the Middle East. They see the division in the United States and sense weak support of Israel by America and want to seize on that divide to shake up the Middle East. Countries are choosing sides. Iran has the support of Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and, behind the scenes, Russia and China. Israel has the United States, England, Jordan, and France helping in their defense. The U.S. is calling for restraint from Israel, but Israel says they will do what is necessary to protect their sovereignty.

The escalation in the Middle East from a conflict between Hamas and Israel to a more widespread situation across the region means we now have two major hot spots, the other being Ukraine, that have started under Biden’s watch. This is terrible news for America as it shows a lack of respect for America and fear of Joe Biden. The world, especially our adversaries, knows that Joe Biden has weakened our military, has a poor grasp on foreign affairs, and has an ineffective team in Harris, Blinken, and Austin. China will back Iran, knowing that the Middle East will occupy our attention, drawing it away from Taiwan. Our military is not capable of involvement in multiple theaters.

Nobody in the Middle East wants or can afford a prolonged conflict in the region. The attention now falls on Israel as the world waits to see how she responds to the Iranian aggression. Iran is calling Saturday’s attack a limited first wave and, of course, warns Washington to stay out of the fight. Biden has to be looking to end this quickly, as two international conflicts and the disaster at our southern border will not play well with voters in November. Biden’s number one problem is the man in the mirror. He is not equipped, nor has he surrounded himself with qualified people to handle everything on his plate. This will be a good lesson to show that Woke and Diverse are no match for strong and competent. A bad lesson for Joe. A bad experience for America.

The post “Biden said, Don’t – They Did … So What Happens Next? appeared first on Granite Grok.