So, What's the Link Between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and NH House Democrats? - Granite Grok

So, What’s the Link Between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and NH House Democrats?

Kuper -free speech

What’s the Link Between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and NH House Democrats? Both wish to shut you (and us) up!  First, the ones with guns, explosives, and knives that behead people and say “Allahu Akbar!” (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Related: New Hampshire House Democrats Propose Bill That Looks Like An Attack on Free Speech

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority, met Thursday in Jeddah and called for the adoption of an international law criminalizing criticism of Islam. But that kind of law could never be adopted in the United States, could it? Think again.

The OIC’s secretary-general, Dr. Yousef al-Othaimeen, called upon the nations of the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to crack down on speech that was “insulting religions or prophets.” It was clear, however, that al-Othaimeen couldn’t have cared less about speech insulting Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or any of the revered figures of those religions. He cared only about criticism of Islam.

“There are laws against anti-Semitism and racism,” said al-Othaimeen. “So we request a law against mocking religions.”…

Read the link, it is very real and you may be very surprised at what Obama (Prez), Hillary (SecState), and Tom Perez (then assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, now DNC Chair) were doing to our First Amendment Rights.  You won’t be a happy camper.

Now the ones that make the laws enabling them to take your money, limit your freedoms, and say the word “inclusive” a LOT:

NH Democrats – called for the adoption of a NH law criminalizing criticism of Democrats that will crack down on speech that was “insulting certain public servants of the Democrat persuasion (mainly)”.  NH State Reps. Diggs, Graf. 16; Rep. J. Schmidt, Hills. 28; Rep. W. Thomas, Hills. 21; Rep. Frost, Straf. 16; Rep. Murphy, Hills. 21; Rep. Altschiller, Rock. 19; Rep. Grossman, Rock. 18″ are all calling for a law to against mocking Democrats.

That would be HB1159-FN – AN ACT relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking and doxxing of a public servant. The sponsors, ALL Democrats, must be VERY tired of listening to constituents. Time for a fisking (emphasis mine, reformatted):


This bill establishes a criminal penalty for cyberbullying, cyberstalking, or doxxing of a public servant.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty

AN ACT relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and doxxing of a public servant.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1  Obstructing Government Administration.  Amend RSA 642:1 to read as follows:

642:1  Obstructing Government Administration.

I.  A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if that person uses intimidation, actual or threatened force or violence, simulated legal process, cyberstalking or cyberbullying, doxxing, or engages in any other unlawful conduct with a purpose to hinder or interfere with a public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, performing or purporting to perform an official function or to retaliate for the performance or purported performance of such a function.

II.  Flight by a person charged with an offense, refusal by anyone to submit to arrest, or any such interference in connection with a labor dispute with the government shall be prosecuted under the statutes governing such matters and not under this section.

III.  In this section[,]:

(a)  “Cyberbullying” means the repeated and intentional use of a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device for the purpose of harassing or threatening a public servant.

(b)  “Cyberstalking” means:

(1)  Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly engaging in a course of conduct using a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device targeted at a public servant which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person’s immediate family, and the public servant is actually placed in such fear;

(2)  Purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct using a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device targeted at a public servant, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that individual’s immediate family.

Remember, NH State Rep falsely accused us at GraniteGrok to have engaged in such conduct that she proclaimed that four Merrimack Democrat female NH State Reps received police protection from the police (the police denied it completely in responding to an RSA 91:A demand).  Schmidt thought that was a very “reasonable” course of action to say that.

That fits the absolute definition of Libel. Which, as you know, I haven’t done anything in a legal fashion…..yet.  So would my hesitation, thus far, be construed as “cyberstalking”?  Opining about their thoughts that can play a role in setting policy/laws, debating, and publishing voting records be now considered “cyberstalking”?

(c)  “Doxxing” means recklessly or purposely revealing and publicizing any private or personally identifiable information of a public servant for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, or harassing such person in the course of his or her official duties.

This is ABSOLUTELY hilarious.  What screwups these sponsors are (oh, would they consider this fisking “harassment”? After all, a number of them (Frost, Altschiller, Schmidt, Thomas, and Murphy) have come under our gaze in the past.  Would they so deign to “redefine” harassment such that even our publishing their voting record, the laws they come up with and vote on a frequent basis so as to “ensnare” us in their briar patch (wonder if they’ll catch the reference).

Doxxing – do they even realize that their own Government does this already? Let’s use just one as an example:

Yep, NH State Rep Jan Schmidt.  Yep, the image is from the State of NH website for the NH House, specifically the Roster information for each and every House member.  ALL the information one would need to complete the information that would be the core part of a Doxxing. Proved, free of charge and in 30 seconds – by the Speaker of the House “Deputy Dawg” Shurtleff.  Hey, he’s in your Party, right Jan?  Your own leadership – doing it to you.  Whether you take a screenshot or just link to the page.

She’s also a Nashua City Alderman – and GUESS WHAT?  Not only would the NH House be guilty of Doxxing under her law but also the City of Nashua:

Get out the popcorn as I want to watch both of these trials.

(d) “Simulated legal process” means a document or order which purports to have been issued by a court or filed or recorded for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act, but which the actor knows was not lawfully issued or rendered in accordance with the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances of the federal, state, or local government, or a political subdivision thereof.  “Simulated legal process” includes any document that purports to be a summons, lien, indictment, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.

Well, this is one thing we at GraniteGrok would be safe from – we never had nor ever will do a prank like that. We don’t have to – we already seem to occupy space in some Democrats heads rent-free.  All we have to do is write about them and it gets under their skin.  “Merry Christmas y’all” might be sufficient, it seems. True – I am still considering legal action for libel or I may do an ethics complaint against Schmidt instead – but just talking about potential future action be worse than her actual lying (in “print” no less)?

Isn’t that what the Left calls “Power Inequality” – the use of a high position in order to cause harm to those of much less stature?

IV.  For any offense committed under paragraph I that involved the use of simulated legal process, the court may impose the following remedies, in addition to any criminal penalties authorized under RSA 651:

(a)  Such appropriate injunctive relief as the court may deem necessary to prevent continued violations of this section.

(b)  Restitution to the public [official] servant for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the simulated legal process, including legal fees.

Hmmm, in our case, why isn’t the reverse also mentioned and codified?

Restitution to a falsely accused citizen for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the simulated legal process, including legal fees.

But would Schmidt bob her head in assent to amend her bill to include this particular scenario, especially since it has happened?  Her own words?

And to the end – this made me chuckle:

2  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect January 1, 2021.

A year?  Are they thinking that this is DOA?  Most bills like this are immediate, 30, or 60 days out.  Not an entire year. Why put it off that long?

OK, gone long again but lots of quoting. Yes, the linchpin between the Muslim group and the Democrat group is the wish and call to silence you and I. While most countries, a simple law would be all that it would take.  Here in the US, the First Amendment and most State’s versions thereof would make it much harder.

Make no mistake, however, this is all about the quenching of dissent. To stop criticism. To put themselves on a higher plane in order to get their way.

To shut you (and us) up. So much for their oaths.

That’s what people do when they can’t win a simple debate – make it impossible, or at the loss of your Liberty, to speak out against them.