Yes, I heard the cries of a number of you behind me begging me not to do it. Yes, I saw a goodly number of you stand up to walk out of the room to avoid the vote. I even stood for the request to register the vote via a roll call. It was, in fact, roll called. I know we must have lost about one-third of our caucus on this vote. That’s okay. I’m not even going to look at the names. I’m not writing to name you, or shame you. I get it. I don’t hate you for it. I simply want the opportunity to convince you that you missed something important, and got it wrong, so that we might get it right going forward. So, come and let us reason together.
Of course, you probably know I’m talking about my objection to, and my attempt to shut down, a speech by a so-called “transgender” Democrat from the House floor today. This Democrat was speaking, at length, against our already-passed bill (HB148) to classify based on biological sex in order to protect, mostly, women and girls from perverts and opportunists in bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and sports. Of course, this was passed, by us just months ago, with complete moral clarity in the face of the anti-civilizational ideology of “transgenderism” sweeping the nation. I thank you for those votes.
You who voted against my objection, here, likely did so because of a stalwart duty to protect the legacy and tradition of open debate – an item so necessary in a republican form of government that exemptions to usual laws against slander and such are baked into our very Constitution. You also might have made the political calculation that it would be unpopular to be seen “silencing” a “transgender.” I myself was perfectly content to listen to the deeply flawed arguments this young man was making from the well right up until the point that it crossed what ought to have been a bright red line.
To be clear, this young man wasn’t offering an impromptu memorial in the middle of a debate. No, this stunt – dutifully reading off the names and locations of alleged deceased “transgender” persons across America from the past year, with a preface that it might take hours to do so – was considered wholly germane to the issue at hand. How might that be? You don’t have to wonder much. It was both implicit and advertised explicitly that this legislation, and others like it, were responsible for creating these corpses. It should, then, be obvious that the unspoken but unavoidable conclusion is that the crafters of such legislation, those voting for it, and even, by extension, those voting to elect those representatives have blood on their hands – bearing a moral culpability akin to manslaughter or, perhaps, even murder.
This also is not occurring in a vacuum, whereby such an outrageous claim might be brushed off as the juvenile rantings of a perpetual child. No, on the contrary, this occurs in amid a veritable tidal wave of lethal “transgender” terrorism against Conservatives, Christians, the children of Christians, and the American order. No hyperbole exists here. These individuals are quoted at length from manifestos as acting on exactly the damnable, false rhetoric being advanced from the well today. After all, what kind of decent person would remain passive in the face of actual Nazi genocide? Think the rhetoric is too much? I was accused of exactly this “genocide” against “transgenders” recently for merely disagreeing about the trans agenda by the prominent head of public relations for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, sparking a wave of threats and attacks on me and my household.
Democrats are no strangers to the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” whereby the social temperature is raised by exactly such rhetoric with the full knowledge that those already close to the edge will be motivated to violence. They have used their puppets in the media for exactly this purpose, as a sort of thermostat for driving kinetic violence, for years. It’s a classic technique of political warfare – one warned of in the work 1984 in its indelible scene of “two minutes of hate.” It’s been described in military manuals for many years, as the “main actor” utilizes the follow-on social effects of the “violent splinter” to advance it’s own agenda and increase it’s own power. It’s not quite Marxism 101 – perhaps Marxism 103, but it’s classic Marxism nonetheless.
That brings us to the reason we were elected. While I don’t seek in the least to denigrate the traditions of our institution, we were elected not to uphold mere procedural norms, but to deliver justice and safety to those who sent us here, and to do so according to classical American ethics. We don’t arrive in these hallowed halls amid normal times in this nation. We, the GOP, aren’t merely sparring partners to the loyal opposition. The Democrats long ago abandoned pretense, removed the gloves, sharpened their teeth, and they’ve enacted every measure of lawfare and excess available in pursuit of their damnable agenda. Also, I do not recommend going so far as to break our own rules. On the contrary, I only ask that we use them to positive effect.
It’s not exactly “unfair” either. Even within this very session Democrats have serially sought to silence us – not slanderous lies, but mere arguments they don’t care for offered meekly and in good faith are met with objections. When they’re not throwing up procedural hurdles they loose their tongues from the floor of the House with hectoring, accusations, profanity, and naked sophistry while our people speak on controversial topics. It’s an embarrassment, but its also effective in cowing our less confident members.
So, I ask that you consider what I’ve said with the seriousness due the assassination of conservative icon, Godly father and husband, Christian martyr, and non-violent activist Charlie Kirk. Amid a spectacle of similar Leftist violence across our nation, this speech today was the same damnable, slanderous, lying rhetoric used to justify his murder and that of others. Our rules give us legal immunity in speech but they also compel us to self-police when it crosses the line. If that wasn’t the expectation the rule wouldn’t exist in the first place. If putting our people in harm’s way through slander and synchronized messaging towards stochastic violence doesn’t demand censure, then nothing does. If we allow this Queer Marxist movement to insinuate from the floor of the New Hampshire House of Representatives that our constituents have blood on their hands, we deserve the worst this November. If we don’t stand in the gap for our constituents, why should they check the box for us?
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
