Every legislative session is presented with too many bills and, in recent years, too slim of a majority to get the good ones to the Governor. But because we have so many new ideas, there are always some you might not expect, like legislation to ban weather modification.

To be clear, I’m not making fun of the bill or its sponsors. In a world where some folks can’t shut up about unnecessary “emissions” or pollutants in our atmosphere, this should play well on both sides of the aisle. New Hampshire House Bill 1700 (HB1700),

[E]stablishes a regulatory process to prevent the intentional release of polluting emissions, in New Hampshire’s atmosphere and at ground level and provides penalties for violations. This bill requires reports of such violations to be made by state officials and members of the public to the department of environmental services air resources division of compliance and requires New Hampshire county sheriffs carry to enforce the provisions.

What emissions? The intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation.

The general court finds that many atmospheric activities such as weather modification, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), solar radiation modification (SRM), and other forms of geoengineering, involving the intentional release of polluting emissions, harm human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, wildlife, aviation, state security, and the economy of the state of New Hampshire.

Without using the word chem-trails, which can trigger people, the bill does address a genuine set of circumstances. From public figures to leading universities, there is chatter about aerosolizing the atmosphere with material to block the sun. We have less information about what that means than we did about the COVID vaccines, and we can assume it is neither safe nor effective.

Absent the knowledge or understanding, knowing that the agents or agencies likely to suggest or attempt such a thing will lie about it. That our elites have, at best, a declining opinion of human life and, at worst, a commitment to end it in their depopulation quest, this is not a ridiculous piece of legislation.

One of the sponsors is a friend, so I’d expect them to offer some follow-up, but if I’m honest, I don’t know how far this bill will likely go. I hope we get some vigorous debate in the comments, but the current makeup of the State House and Senate do not suggest to me success with the understanding that you are guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take.

There are factions who mean to spread things in the air above us. They are not shy about it, and if we lack any sense of transparency, limits, or regulation, we might find ourselves subject to man-caused atmospheric effects without knowledge of recourse.

This is worth discussing.

The post NH Bill Seeks to Ban Cloud Seeding and Other Forms of Atmospheric Geoengineering appeared first on Granite Grok.

I am writing with regard to the proposed bill to legalize assisted suicide in New Hampshire, which you have been (rightly) concerned about. I was horrified to learn that this is being proposed and packaged as a “medical freedom” bill.

I think one aspect you have not yet argued that is fundamentally important is that it is WORSE than the beginning of a slippery slope to eugenicism, such as Canada and the UK have undertaken in horrible ways. New Hampshire tried but ultimately failed to pass several key parental rights bills, including clear language protecting the decision-making rights of parents for minor children in medical scenarios. Children will NOT be the decision-makers for themselves right from the get-go.

It will literally be a life-and-death battle between parents and hospitals for the lives of children right from the beginning.

Because high profile cases like that of Ewa Kowalski are sadly not unique; children and minors are frequently removed from their parents’ guardianship in hospital situations when some officiating person does not see eye to eye with the parent or feels challenged by them (see the case of Justine Pelletier, from Connecticut, a few years ago, and Boston Children’s.) This is moving backward, not forward, in the cause of freedom!

I am morally opposed to suicide, but if you ask me, the issue is nowhere near being a philosophically consistent freedom position, either. One cannot simply ignore all the other legal apparatus and what it means in conjunction with one’s proposed legislation. If those freedom people who philosophically support the concept of a right to a death wish to formulate that as legislation and remain consistent, they must do so only after they have successfully warded off the state from the rights of parents, families, the religious, etc., in medical situations. Something that was grossly violated, I may add, for many thousands of Americans for the duration of Covid.

From the beginning, it is my belief that such a bill as this, if passed, will enable hospitals and doctors to take the decision to terminate out of the hands of parents and into their own when it comes to children. They always want our children.

From a very concerned mother of four and staunch supporter of genuine medical freedom.

The post A Life-And-Death Battle Between Parents and Hospitals for the Lives of Children appeared first on Granite Grok.

Legions of well-meaning individuals will have or are about to resolve or promise or pander to the idea of better health. Diets, exercise, and even yoga top the list of wellness doctrines embraced – perhaps in the alcoholic stupor – as part of the New Year ‘resolution’ tradition.

Most of these will fail, a few with the addition of expensive coat holders or sweater dryers originally designed and built as stationary bikes, treadmills, ellipticals, or weight machines. Some with pricey subscriptions to content meant to inspire, but you have to get on the equipment and then come back.

The goals are well meant but often lacking in proper motivation past the, well, it’s New Year’s, so this is a good time to act like I’ve changed since yesterday. There are a few who manage to pull it off but not most because they lack the proper incentive.

We are here to help, as is the young lady in the short video below with her words of wisdom to which I’ll ask, is this enough motivation for you to get in shape?

Why do you run?

pic.twitter.com/kPBN3wFKOw

— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) December 29, 2023

What do you think? That or something like it, and is it motivating enough? Maybe you could “run” for something else too—public office, to the polls to vote in local elections. To a public meeting or to a laptop to hold public and elected officials’ feet to the fire?

Plenty of options. Let us know what you plan to do.

The post Need a Better Reason to ‘Get In Shape’ in 2024 … appeared first on Granite Grok.

A bill pre-filed in the New Hampshire House would effectively ban government surveillance using facial recognition in the state. The passage of this bill would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Thomas Cormen, along with a bipartisan coalition of 10 legislators, filed House Bill 1688 (HB1688) on Dec. 15. Provisions in the legislation would prohibit AI used for “real-time and remote biometric identification systems used for surveillance in public spaces, such as facial recognition, except when used to locate a missing or abducted person.”

AI is an important aspect of all current facial recognition systems. ReFaces is a biometrics company that sells facial recognition systems. According to its website, “the majority of modern facial recognition algorithms have some semblance of integrated deep learning and neural network.”

“Intelligent, AI-based software can instantaneously search databases of faces and compare them to one or multiple faces that are detected in a scene. In an instant, you can get highly accurate results.”

In effect, the passage of HB 1688 would ban government facial recognition surveillance in public spaces.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

A 2019 report revealed that the federal government has turned state driver’s license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but the story wasn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive facial recognition system for years.

The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.

In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.

“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”

Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.

There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.

With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials can track individuals in real time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.

In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).

Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.

Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1688 will be officially introduced when the New Hampshire legislature convenes on Jan. 3. It will be referred to the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee, where it must receive a hearing and a vote before moving forward in the legislative process. An “ought to pass” recommendation would greatly increase the bill’s chance of passage in the full House.

Mike Maharrey | Tenth Amendment Center

The post NH Bill Would Ban A.I. Facial Recognition Surveillance appeared first on Granite Grok.

Two-hundred-and-thirty-one US military members have submitted a letter to the American people, shared with United States military command. In it, they accuse ‘leadership’ of unconstitutional lawless behavior, experimentation on members of the military, and disregard for the harm caused by forced COVID vaccination.

While implementing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, military leaders broke the law, trampled constitutional rights, denied informed consent, permitted unwilling medical experimentation, and suppressed the free exercise of religion.

The letter is to us, explaining their commitment to seek accountability. “To rebuild trust and the rule of law, particularly in the armed forces.” And the culpability is not limited to those in uniform. They pledge to do everything legally possible to demonstrate how other agencies in the government “can put their own house in order.”

At 4am EST today (a few min ago), senior military leaders received an email with a letter attached called the Declaration of Military Accountability. I know because I sent the email. I sent it on behalf of myself & 230 other signatories of the letter. The letter is not addressed to the military leaders but rather to the American people. The email was merely to inform these military leaders that there is group of troops & vets pledging to the American public that we will do everything lawfully within our power to stop the willful destruction of our military by its own leadership. Let’s take our country back in 2024 & let’s begin by defending our military from its own leadership. You can find the body of the letter below. Soon we’ll have it on a website where you can find it as well, along with the names of the 231 signatories.

Here’s the tweet and the letter below.

At 4am EST today (a few min ago), senior military leaders received an email with a letter attached called the Declaration of Military Accountability. I know because I sent the email. I sent it on behalf of myself & 230 other signatories of the letter. The letter is not addressed… pic.twitter.com/jFkF3FmcA8

— Brad Miller (@BradMiller1010) January 1, 2024

Nice words, as they say. Inspiring, much like the Declaration of Independence, which ended with, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

What do we expect the DoD and the US Military to do to the 231 cosigners of this Declaration of Military Accountability?

He says, Troops and vets. I can’t imagine it will be pleasant for those who are active military.

Thoughts?

The post A Declaration of Military Accountability … appeared first on Granite Grok.