Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s famous words, “The line between good and evil runs through the human heart,” should haunt the minds of leftwing American voters; citizens proud of their hatred for our Second Amendment.

Their disdain for our right to bear arms is exactly the same as the United Nations and all other communist blood brothers throughout history. As history once again repeats itself, they demonstrate the same evil strategy that flows through the veins of all dictators. Mao Tse-tung voiced it with utmost clarity: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” Inverting reality, evil in man’s heart pulls the trigger. Gun control is people control.

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

Ever since America has been a member of the UN, this inversion of reality has been the determined policy of the United States government. Gun owners, especially, should take note of this root cause behind controlling all firearms. Consider President John F. Kennedy’s speech before the UN General Assembly, surrendering the command of guns to the UN, called: “Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” Passionate gun owners should know its content: “I … propose on the basis of this Plan, that disarmament negotiations resume promptly, and continue without interruptions until an entire program for general and complete disarmament has not only been agreed upon but has actually been achieved.” Included were disbanding all armed forces except for internal order, the UN peace force, and elimination of national arsenals – weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery.

The John Birch Society was wise to State Department Document 7277- Disarmament in A Peaceful World. Birchers fervently questioned Washington congressional delegations. Asking, why an American president would promote submission to the UN Charter above the Constitution with which he had sworn an oath? Why would he participate in implementing a global program to surrender all firearm ownership of the individual and completely disarm our military power? Shortly thereafter, their requests for Document 7277 was answered: “out of print.” The JBS responded by publishing 7277 themselves. Copies are available at ShopJBSj.org.

We cannot ignore the UN’s historical prejudice against firearms that is portrayed in a sculpture of a pistol with a knotted gun barrel in front of UN headquarters. Guns insure liberty. Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Chip Roy have introduced S. 3428 and H.R 6645, The Defund Act to withdraw U.S. from United Nations and all its agencies. Don’t let The UN trojan horse keep their gun in the back of American liberty. Check out this four minute video on UN absolute power that can only happen when they have all weapons!

https:jbs.org/video/activate/the-danger-of-absolete-power-activate-america/

The post Night Cap: The UN is Coming for Your Guns appeared first on Granite Grok.

Those of us who have committed ourselves to living in the sausage factory of politics are keenly aware of the dynamics, so we know we need good people in elected office we can support. We need them now.

And while General John Stark may not be rolling over in his grave about what we’ve done with the liberty for which his men fought and died, he would want us to do whatever we could to defend what is left and (certainly) work to improve on it. He would want you to step up and fight for freedom.

To live free or die (rhetorically, in this case).

It is a battle worth fighting because the Democrats will not waste time raising taxes, grooming kids, taking freedoms, and adding strings to DC if they take the majority. They will undermine health freedom, go after our Second Amendment rights, and try to undermine free speech further. Energy will get more expensive, and illegals will get more rights than actual citizens. They will also destroy the economy.

We can’t leave seats uncontested. We need to fight to hold the seats we have and peel a few away (a few dozen would be better), or the slim pickings worth of improvement made in recent years could be gone in one session or less.

We want You! to run for state rep, and you don’t have to do it alone. Email the 603 Alliance and let them know you want to attend the upcoming May 18th Candidate Training. You can also attend the Issues Briefing Summit, a free evening event (with food) that will help you grasp the things voters are likely to ask you when you engage them and what you’re likely to see coming up in Concord when you win.

Class candidates can also get access to campaign resources and past instruction, as well as invitations to future Zoom calls throughout the campaign season to help with questions and issues or connect you with resources.

The 603 Alliance is your primary source for candidate campaign training in NH in 2024 (the NHGOP will be offering training for Poll Watchers on May 2).

When you register for the one-day training, you will have access to experienced candidates and activists all the way to election day.

We need you to run. If you are thinking about it or know someone who is, share this message or Email today and ask to register for the May 18th training in Concord.

The post Gen. John Stark Would Want You to Run for NH State Rep! appeared first on Granite Grok.

Last Week, the coordinated media made noise about accelerated sea level rise. That’s nothing new. They do it all the time, though, not as often as the hottest thing ever. Both lack evidence and rigor, neither of which are required to snap coastal elites like a twig.

Related: Sea Level Rise Blamed for Increasing Coastal Property Values Instead of Depressing Them

Hotter than when? Higher than when? The earth has been both hotter and the sea level higher in the absence of humans or any anthropogenic influence. In my geologic neighborhood, the East Coast is sinking. Paying three times as much for heat and twice as much for gas won’t stop the land moving. And how are EVs, which weigh a lot more than traditional transportation, supposed to do anything but make that worse? Isostatic change is never in the press releases, but fears of accelerated rise are, despite past predictions failing to produce the scaremongered result.

But why give up on a good thing?

 At Grand Isle, Louisiana, the big red arrow in the Gulf of Mexico, the relative sea level is rising at 9.2 mm per year … while only a short distance away, the green arrow to the right of Grand Isle shows that Pensacola, Florida has a relative sea level rise less than a third of that, 2.7 mm per year.

Why different sea level rise rates? Again, it has nothing to do with the ocean. It’s because Grand Isle is a silty barrier island in the Mississippi Delta, and like all such islands, it’s slowly sinking into the briny blue.

You find differences all over the map. Some locations are seeing seas recede. Do they get to keep their money and drive combustion-engine vehicles without the climate cultists’ side-eye? How do you explain the differences in variables from storms to temperature to sea level while still arguing the problem is global? They can’t explain any of it except to say they believe without a doubt (faith) that we all must repent (whether we believe or not), and their expensive, half-baked penance will fix everything.

Related: While Scaremongering CO2 NOAA (Unintentionally) Admits No Correlation to Sea Level Rise … or Fossil Fuels

There is net-zero evidence that any of that is true, but it is difficult to convince a zealot of anything, especially when it affects their paycheck.

But there’s nothing any of us can do about Sea level rise (or fall). Much like the atmosphere, there are more variables than are accounted for because to consider them would end the scam, and what then?

Some additional reading, if it interests you.
14,600 Years Ago Prehistoric SUV’s Melted Ice Sheets Causing 60 Feet of Sea Level Rise<
Another Atoll Endangered by Sea Level Rise Has More Land Mass than it Had in 1943
And another 720 more …

The post Putting Recent Sea Level Rise Acceleration ‘Panic’ Into Perspective appeared first on Granite Grok.

This is interesting news.  A New Hampshire State Supreme Court Justice has disqualified themself from deciding matters regarding Daniel Richard v. Gov. Chris Sununu.

This just in:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0097, Daniel Richard v. Governor, State of New Hampshire & a., the clerk of court on May 7, 2024, issued the following order:

This order is being issued to notify the parties that Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has disqualified herself from this case

That’s one of the four appointed by Sununu.

And no, I’m not yet clear on why she recused herself, but if we learn more, we’ll update.

Catch up on Daniel Richard v. Gov. Chris Sununu here.

The post Breaking: Justice Marconi Recuses Herself in Daniel Richard v. Gov Sununu et al. appeared first on Granite Grok.

Last year, “Republicans” in Concord did a victory lap when they budgeted $18 million in state general fund capital for the maintenance of the Cannon Mountain Tramway. Was that enough?  Nope!

They now want $33 million for a redundant, low-capacity lift that only runs a few days a week and for only a couple of months per ski season.  A lift that was closed for the better part of two years during the Covid scare.

But wait, there’s more!

The state’s new general manager announced an “urgent need for substantial capital” beyond the tramway replacement.

Where does this money come from? Take a look in the mirror. Despite endless claims that Cannon is a “self-funded, self-managed, state-owned success story,” it has required millions in subsidies from other state parks and the general fund. Even with all of these millions of dollars in subsidies, Cannon has not been able to maintain its existing infrastructure.

The swells in Franconia will execute their tried and true strategy to take more of our money. Float a trial balloon in the friendly press, get someone in Concord to throw it into a bill, and then fill a hearing room with trust fund skiers crying about how we need to protect this state treasure. Rinse and repeat.

Taxpayers are already facing unprecedented pressure in New Hampshire.  Now is not the time to be spending tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the life of leisure for the beautiful people in Franconia.

Tell your legislators that you don’t want any more money going to Cannon Mountain.

The post Cannon Mountain Preparing For Additional Taxpayer Money Grab appeared first on Granite Grok.

I still remember George W. Bush being called a fascist, etc. by the Left when he was President. Now it is so different. He is one of the “good ones.” What changed? Not W.

What changed is that someone named Donald Trump came along and exposed the Republican Party as controlled opposition … that most of the “Republicans” holding elected office represented the UniParty, not Republican voters.

Donald Trump represented and represents an existential threat to America’s post World War II pseudo-democracy. As much of a threat to traditional (i.e. controlled opposition) Republicans as to the Democrats. That’s why the Left no longer calls W and his ilk, fascists … there is a real enemy to be dealt with: Trump.

Excellent post by Western Lensmen. W was a make-believe threat that Obama, Inc. used to mobilize legions of shallow-thinking Commy-bots. Of course, there were and are differences within the UniParty, but those differences are minor compared to the differences between Trump … who represents real, not pseudo-democracy … and the UniParty.

In 2008, Barack Obama cast George W. Bush as a uniquely radical, ideological leader who had “kidnapped” the “sensible” Republican party.

Sound familiar?

“…if I can describe it as the Republican party kidnapped by an incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican… pic.twitter.com/I22qOQIjgQ

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 29, 2024

The post “W” Stands For “U” appeared first on Granite Grok.

Julie Smith wrote on Sunday a retrospective on Jeb Bradley’s career in the New Hampshire Senate — essentially, a place where “good House bills go to die.” It’s also a place where legislators go to retire. (So too Digital Equipment Corporation in its latter years.) Boston’s Howie Carr often quips that anyone who has been in a State House for six years has proven his uselessness.

These accumulate in the Senate. What Senators actually prove is that they have self-selected for acting as a herd versus speaking bluntly or analyzing the likely effects of a bill that the herd favors — or supporting a bill that the herd opposes. For evidence of this, peruse the annual rankings of roll calls by the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. While every Republican is rated higher than any Democrat, the Republicans bunch up around the C+ grade, essentially a coin flip on questions of individual liberty.

The Democrats have flaming Marxists, but the Republicans have no brilliant Constitutionalists, emphatically including Jeb.

Well, what shall we do about that?

New Hampshire’s founders patterned our General Court after the federal Congress that arose after the Connecticut Compromise. The lower house was apportioned by population; the Senate was apportioned roughly by land area. As with Congress and the Electoral College, the explicit point was thereby to inhibit government action unless it was acceptable to both urban and rural Granite Staters. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Supreme Court broke that in 1964 with Reynolds v. Sims, which ruled that both houses of state legislatures had to be proportional to population. Earl Warren wrote that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” Of course, rural and urban interests are different. This was a pioneering decision of Substantive Due Process; that is, someone is being denied Due Process unless my opinion prevails.

The Warren Court was wrong. Legislators representing numerical majorities don’t need the power to enact law; they need the power to block enactments — which they have if either house is proportional to population. (No Supreme Court has taken Reynolds to its logical conclusion — that the Constitution contradicts itself, and the only “just” solution is 100 interstate U.S. Senate districts, each with an equal population. But the Democratic Party is moving in this direction on several fronts apart from its dream of court-packing.)

But, fine. We’re stuck with Reynolds. That doesn’t mean the Senate has to be a miniature carbon copy of the House, with a membership that is older and drained of spark. The Senate should either be gotten rid of (as Nebraska has) or constituted differently from the House.

One method, which is still proportional to population, is Party List voting, as is used in several other countries, including partly in Mexico’s lower house. People vote for a political party, and based on the result, the party executives pick some number of Senators. (I acknowledge the risk of having any political party’s executives make any important decision.)

My town has one State Rep, plus a “floterial” Rep for a group of three adjacent towns. They defend any unique needs we might have based on our location in the state. In the other house, why don’t we vote by ideology rather than again by geography? Assuming they invite the adults back in, I would vote Libertarian for Senate — the name of the Senator not on the ballot. We might only get one Senator appointed by the State Committee, but joining with 55,000 Granite Staters based on philosophy beats joining with 55,000 residents based on living nearby, which we already do in the House. And the Senate would instantly have more diversity of thought.

No, this idea is not going anywhere. You don’t get major reform without a groundswell. Moreover, this certainly requires amending the state constitution, which takes a supermajority of voters, and Granite Staters are far too suspicious of their government even to repeal the office of Register of Probate, even after all its functions have been repealed. A far more pressing amendment is to repeal the first half of Part 2, Article 83 (on the attitude of future legislators) — the platitude our mischievous Judiciary has used for decades to dictate that we are constitutionally required to throw ever more loot at the welfare schools.

So, I’ll leave the idea of Senate by Party List here to perhaps plant a small seed.

The post Senate by Party List appeared first on Granite Grok.

We are still accepting votes for comment of the week until 8 pm ET tonight. Please take a moment to review the “comments” from last week and vote for a winner.

You can jump to the post and pole by clicking here!

The post Reminder: Vote for Comment of the Week appeared first on Granite Grok.

I lack confidence that very many legislators will even read, let alone heed, this legal opinion as to why Proposal 4 is a complete waste of taxpayer resources, and so I am writing this opinion directly to Vermonters. This Proposal, which purports to expand existing constitutional rights to a list of novel protected classes, is not about enhancing the Rule of Law but dismantling it.

I am not engaging in an ideological social justice battle here – our progressive legislators are. Using the Legislature and our State Constitution as political footballs has become common sport for the Progressives – such antics don’t actually DO anything, as Vermonters see. But it does do one thing very clearly – it reveals that those making our laws don’t understand, or else seek to undermine, the integrity of established laws. This has gone beyond virtue-signaling: it is a breach of fiduciary duty and public trust.

Vermont seeks to increase property taxes 20 percent, as well as income taxes, and Progs want to institute a new tax on unrealized gains. These are children playing clubhouse, but they don’t know the rules.

While Vermont’s economy plummets, and the standard of living drops while its retirees become homeless, “Progressives” are out to save Vermont from evil “rights violations.” But here’s the rub – no advocate for Proposal 4 has actually furthered a need for the legislative change aside from a feel-good virtue-signal. Not one example of what this law change would do to improve a single person’s life or counter the dreaded “white supremacy” used to legitimize it has been offered. Proposal 4, then, is simply a platitude. (Similarly, Proposal 2, which pretended to end indentured servitude in Vermont, had no real purpose – no on in Vermont is being enslaved, are they?).

But hidden within this farcical game of Nero fiddling while Vermontistan burns, are hints of the real threat to Vermonters from the very people weaponizing our constitution for their personal protection. Jay Greene, a transgender carpetbagger who recently moved here to get paid to condemn Vermonters for not being sufficiently woke, gave this very revealing testimony:

Greene stated (@59:45): “Repairing historical harm sometimes requires equitable treatment, not equal treatment, and equity sometimes means targeting programs to populations based on need rather than absolute equal treatment,” that religion is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and according to his personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, “I have concerns with some people using ‘freedom of religion’ as an excuse to deny the human rights of people like myself, transgender people and other people of the protected classes that are listed in Proposal 4.”

So Proposal 4 is being enacted because newly-arrived Jay Greene “has concerns” about people using “freedom of religion” as “an excuse to deny the human rights of people like myself, transgender people and other people of the protected classes that are listed in Proposal 4.” I am not aware that a single legislator followed up on this to ask what that hinted evil consists of – what is it about a person’s faith that “deprives another of human rights”? The hazy allegation was made, but not even a hypothetical example was employed. Is that because Lyons, Greene and the others know exactly who it is they are out to protect, and who they seek to attack, and that they HAVE NO evidence or foundation to offer for this initiative?

Reverend Mark Hughes, Executive Director of Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, offered a similar clarity @47:30: “We need to double-down to include the protection of every vulnerable category – Mr. Chair – respectfully, that’s everybody that’s not a white cis man.” This is a patently, overtly racist statement, but race-hustler Hughes has not even offered a single hypothetical instance of why this new legislation is necessary.

Creating separate classes of people for government benefits, treatment, or protection is facially unconstitutional. It violates, for instance, the Equal Protection Clause. If I allege Jay Greene is a woman (because she is biologically female, feigning to be male), have I “denied human rights”, or do I have a human right to my own opinion? Does the scriptural statement “He made them male and female” become hate speech under Proposal 4? Funny, the Vermont legislature seems unable to even discuss the most obvious questions raised by this bill – is that intentional, or just incompetent?

Jay is an advocate but lacks a law degree. Blatant prejudicial statements on the legislative record only substantiate my claim that this Proposal is unconstitutional on its face, and also unconstitutionally vague. Vermont’s Legislature solicited Professor Peter Teachout and the Office of Legislative Counsel to affirm the bill, but these witnesses have not raised any concerns that 1) there is no actual stated, factual purpose for this change – it won’t actually DO anything; 2) creating disparate treatment for people because of their gender delusions or sexual desires will violate existing federal laws.

Proposal 4 will thus accomplish nothing except expose the state to more lawsuits. Vermont’s politically compromised Attorney General will spend Vermonters’ money defending no matter how unconstitutional the law was ab initio – right from the beginning. As Senator Lyons testified (@ 6:25):

“This doesn’t grant any additional rights to any group or individual. It simply allows for a contemporary look of who we are as a society, and guarantees the rights of those groups that have emerged over time and have demonstrated a need for equal treatment.”

Have any groups in Vermont demonstrated that they have not been treated equally, and thus that they need protection? This conclusion is repeatedly assumed but never established in even the most rudimentary way. If a Vermont baker refuses to bake a transgender cake, will existing law serve all equally? Why or why not? Vermonters are never told, because there is nothing to tell.

The proposal claims it grants no new rights but just issues a “reaffirmation,” we are told. So according to its own proponents, the law either does nothing or does something illegal (allocate wealth or privileges to certain classes). This platitudinal waste of taxpayer resources while Vermonters struggle is evidenced by Lyons’ declaration of the purpose of her petty law (a product of this nouveau social justice attack on American liberties and constitutional foundations):

“It seems rational to change the constitution and put a baseline in place to demonstrate equal treatment. Article 7 does say equal treatment but it was written at a time when we didn’t’ have some of the social groups in our country, or racial and ethnic discrimination we see at our time.

“We know how quickly the culture can change: 2016 – 2020 we saw a radical change in expressions of beliefs around individuals in our country and groups within the country.”

Here we go again. What is she talking about? What is our Progressive legislator saying when she talks of “2016-2020 we saw a radical change in expressions of belief….”? Those of us standing by ironclad constitutional precepts designed and interpreted to guarantee justice and equality are apparently being labeled here as the source of the need to undermine and weaken those protections. Again not a lawyer, Lyons is too ignorant of what leaves her mouth to see Marie Antoinette in the mirror. She and the progressives she serves are the Americans who have forced radical changes in expressions of beliefs” on the majority.

Where are the lawyers? You know – the real ones, who have litigated cases, not the bureaucrats who never have to defend their puffery. Legislative Counsel Eric Fitzpatrick comically claimed

“…the fact that it is in the Vermont Constitution makes this the final say as to how that language is interpreted, would be by the Vermont supreme court, the federal court I mean the United States Supreme Court don’t have any jurisdiction to interpret state constitutional law. So, I think that including language that expands upon, provides more detail on the protections of the Vermont constitution and therefore would be interpreted by the Vermont supreme court having the last word, by more aligned with what we want to see in Vermont as opposed to deferring to the federal courts of the united states constitution because those interpretations will depend on the makeup of the united states supreme court and the composition of the justices on that court. Put it in the Vermont constitution and you can rely on the fact that the last words of the state will be by the court in this state. (@ 14:08).

This is an attorney paid a lot of money by Vermonters to advise the legislature “impartially” on Constitutional matters. Echoing Lyons, Fitzpatrick is clearly seeking to position the state to counter perceived intrusions of conservatives at the federal level. This is quite laughable from an attorney – giving a political opinion veiled as a legal one. But more, Vermonters do not need a law degree to witness how absurd this statement is. OF COURSE federal law trumps state laws that violate the federal Bill of Rights. Allocating state benefits or rights to people based on their sexual desires or delusions of gender identity runs afoul of federal constitutional protections that apply to all fifty states – it is called federal preemption. Fitzpatrick talks as if Vermont can act with complete impunity. (Law Professor Peter Teachout does correctly state the law at p. 5 of his testimony: “Since federal law is supreme, all such programs would be vulnerable to challenge under the federal Equal Protection Clause on grounds they constitute impermissible discrimination on the basis of race.”

Professor Teachout also claims that Vermont must change its laws to protect itself from a federal government overtaken by conservatives: “We live in a world where we can no longer count on the U.S. Supreme Court or the federal government to provide adequate protection against discrimination.” I’m very curious how such a claim can be credibly made – does Professor Teachout refer to Roe v Wade, which Ruth Ginsberg saw as a horrible law? What on earth is he talking about?

This pattern of bypassing basic constitutional liberties of Vermonters on the taxpayer tab is getting old – and much too common. Current attacks on our Fish and Wildlife Department seek to undermine and bypass decades of excellent wildlife stewardship, initiated by extremist activists allowed too much power in Vermont. In 2022, Vermonters watched the liberal dog-and-pony show about amending the state constitution to “protect women’s rights,” which were already fully protected legally. The true purpose of that Alinskian subterfuge was always to advance a sanctuary state status for transgender children to flock to Vermont and hide from their parents to get life-destroying mutilations and drugs at taxpayer expense. Using the public body to further extremist political initiatives was done under the ruse of women’s rights. Vermonters will see how challenges to that legal sleight of hand pan out. In the interim, Proposal 4 seeks to add another scandalously idiotic amendment while the economy tanks.

Progressive legislators have not yet figured out that if they pass unenforceable, unconstitutional laws over and over, citizens will one day just ignore their “Ginny Cried Wolf again” histrionics. A legislature that exceeds its authority loses all authority. But more dangerously, since the Constitution apparently has no hold on our legislators, why on earth would any American follow laws made by criminals? Many of the progressives in this legislature are a disgrace to the Rule of Law, have no regard for the Constitution or established precedent (and actually regard our state and federal Constitutions as white supremacist and seek to undermine both), and display contempt for many of the Vermonters they were elected to serve. This is both malfeasance and nonfeasance, on full naked emperor display.

The further Vermonters look, the more they will see a lack of substance. In one statement, non-attorney Jay Greene claims:

“Our office supports Proposal 4 because it creates an explicit commitment in the state constitution to the work of dismantling systemic racism,” said Greene who urged legislators to consider protections “based on equitable treatment and not just equal treatment.”

Greene shared an example of a program giving free bicycles to everyone who shows up. But if it only offers adult-sized, foot-powered bicycles, it leaves out, and consequently discriminates against, children and wheelchair users. “So equity is when you give people (the kind of) bicycles they need,” Greene said, noting that this may cost more or take more effort.

The question for the legislature is: is there a factual finding of “systemic racism”? That bogeyman is tossed about constantly but has zero teeth – it is just assumed and never proven. The visible problem that is apparently invisible to social justice ideologues is that the Constitution already guarantees EQUALITY and that most initiatives to reallocate wealth or rights based on “equity” by definition are unequal; unjust; and unconstitutional. It is telling that the absurd example of children’s bicycles is used: no real-life example – or even hypothetical – could be proffered.

And that’s what I want Vermonters to see and learn through this farcical charade: what the Constitution says, and how Ginny’s dreams and Jay’s absurdities seek to dismantle it. The evidence is here, jurisprudentially: to be constitutional, every law must at least serve a legitimate government purpose. The advocates for this bill, and the shills recruited to endorse it, cannot collectively provide a single factual justification for the bill, while explicitly proposing it would be used to transfer benefits to “protected” classes. This is just an ideological proclamation with nothing but a symbolic purpose – abusing legal process, the laws, and taxpayer funds for a personal moral display.

I do not oppose fairness, or advocate for discrimination against any group. However, Vermont’s progressive uni-party is already doing so – against the people of faith deliberately omitted from the language of Proposal 4. How about the persecution of a Christian school for forfeiting a basketball game due to a male “identifying” as a girl? How about the Randolph girls being sexually ogled by a trans-boy in their locker room? Vermont has already demonstrated an inability to equitably balance competing beliefs – now it reveals its plans to tighten the noose against people of faith, whom it has already failed completely.

Vermonters can see the marginalization in their midst, by emperors with no clothes, no facts, and no law. This is why I don’t bother writing to a deaf, destructive Progressive legislature determined to undermine and dismantle our laws and economy but directly to voters.

Vermonters, you are being governed by law-breaking ideologues. Proposition 4 is a political stunt with no substantive purpose, which may also run afoul of federal law. Get ready for world depression and local food shortages: your Legislature is out to lunch and will only pour gas on those fires.

Note: I am an attorney admitted to the Connecticut Bar in good standing since 1989. I am not admitted in Vermont. 

The post Inventing Human Rights To Erase Religious Freedom appeared first on Granite Grok.

As I said in part I, “When policies are at the forefront of an election, we win big.” I mentioned the huge win nationwide in 2010 but did not specifically mention our big wins here in NH. I suspect we all remember winning the House 298-102 and the Senate 19-5.

We may never again see such a huge landslide.

As one of the winning Reps, I can say that it was only because I had an R after my name, not because I had great name recognition or a long history of service to the town. That is what can happen when policy drives an election – not just an election but all elections statewide and even nationwide.

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.

This year, let’s try to make the elections at all levels more about policy and less about personality.

Conventional wisdom says that it is difficult to persuade voters to make their decisions on the basis of policy, but the rewards are worth the effort:

• We get bigger wins, which can give us a mandate to pass our agenda.
• There is great synergy among our candidates when they all contrast Republican policies vs Democrat policies rather than person Fred vs. person Sue, etc.
• Because we don’t need to know the names of the Democrat opponents, only their policies (which we know will be practically the same), we can campaign against them from the beginning instead of waiting for the September primary.
• We may finally defeat the Congress critters who have great name ID, but vote for terrible policies.
• The message accumulates from year to year. If each year we get just a few more voters to choose on the basis of policy, that will add up to large numbers.
• Everyone, not just candidates or activists, can help spread the message to vote for policies, not personalities. They don’t have to know the policies or the candidates to spread that idea.

This year it will be easier than usual to persuade voters that policy matters much more than personality. That is because millions of people have learned on their own that, no matter what they thought of Trump or Biden as persons, Trump’s policies made their lives better, Biden’s policies have made their lives worse.

Polls have shown that many blocs that voted strongly for Biden in 2020, have moved toward Trump. They include blacks, Latinos, young people, etc. The economy, inflation, immigration, and crime are policies that have moved voters.

One story I particularly like is about a “Long-time Dem billionaire does an about-face on Trump, admits the left has been blinded by TDS.”

“Silicon Valley venture capital investor Chamath Palihapitiya, who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, admits that he now “appreciates” what former President Donald Trump was able to accomplish during his time in the White House.

“The work on the border wall, we didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. Turned out it was right,” Palihapitiya noted. “Issuing long-term debt to refinance when rates were at zero. We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. A structural peace deal in the Middle East. We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. When are we going to stop shooting ourselves in the foot? When are we going to actually take the time to look past who was saying things and actually listen to them word for word?”

Let’s spread the word. Let’s encourage everyone to vote for policy, not personality. Elections should not be popularity contests, nor should they be rewards for past service to a community. The job of a representative is to vote. The most important question ought to be how well they will do that job – not their personalities. The best way to determine how they will vote is to compare and contrast the candidates’ policies and vote for the one with the better policies.

The post GOP campaign strategy – part II appeared first on Granite Grok.

From the “I finally got to it” pile, Colonel Douglas Macgregor gave an hour of his time to chat with Russell Brand last week. As with most of Brand’s content, it was a great conversation. One portion in particular stood out to me as something we could dig into.

Russell often asks long, complex, multi-faceted questions. They’ve got lots of layers and lots of questions. In this case, the question is no different and includes allusions to national elites, revolution, and the military being asked to suppress any uprising at home or possibly participating in a revolution against the government (question begins at 14:40 is you’d like to hear it in total).

Col. Macgregor provides an instructive response, equally layered, with bits of input on everything from why the US military isn’t ever likely to fight its own government or in that government’s name against its own people to recruitment issues, US provocation, forever wars, Border Security, Child and drug trafficking, and China’s Military problems (it’s not a threat).

It was an interesting response with a lot of launch pads for discussion.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v4r1f6t","div":"rumble_v4r1f6t"});

The post Col. Douglas Macgregor On Military Recruitment, Revolution, Rule of Law, Forever Wars, Woke Garbage … appeared first on Granite Grok.