First, let’s give credit where credit is due. Ian Price, writing at the Daily Skeptic– in a piece about Elon Musk’s comments on the environmental death cult – has concentrated, in one hyphenated word, encapsulated the essence of the Democrat Party.

Anti-human.

The Democrat party and their ideological offspring are guilty of the greatest hate crime of all – if you even think there is such a thing – they hate people. Reducing our numbers pleases them. From abortion to Medical suicide, experimental drugs, and life-ending protocols. Wars, conflicts, and mob justice. An anti-violence agenda begets exponentially more victims of violence, with cultural and social narratives that create division and strife (encouraging us to harm each other) and energy policies that put vulnerable people at risk.

They drug and mutilate children, knowing it could lead to increased suicidal ideation or death.

They are anti-human. And so we are clear, the Party is anti-human, as are the leaders who advance its agenda. Individual Democrats may not be anything of the sort, but we can’t ignore that by voting for Democrats, they enable these outcomes and should pay closer attention. Being a Democrat is no shield should you dare to challenge the approved orthodoxy. Excommunication is likely, but the Democrat party has killed Democrats to keep them from undermining their accumulation of power and pursuit of a one-party state.

And while the FBI will cover it up, that’s no consolation to the abruptly deceased or loved ones with questions.

Mainstreaming Death

The Democrats have always leaned toward death and not just abortion. Their Environmental extremists have been riding the depopulation hobby horse for years. A narrative that has infected the mainstream progressive party structure.

Price frames it thusly,

 

Moreover, the “death cult” that Musk describes is not compartmentalised within the environmental movement since it also pervades other dimensions of what are sometimes referred to as the ‘culture wars’. It is Musk’s death cult that arguably explains the war on women as a reproductive life force for humanity. It is, in my view, for this reason that we see coffee-chain adverts celebrating transitioning girls with mastectomy scars; it is why women can get arrested for praying for the lives of unborn children outside abortion clinics. It explains the antipathy towards economic growth and nuclear power. It also explains the dehumanisation of victims of the Hamas terror attacks who are regarded widely by the New Left as an inevitable and welcome outcome of decolonisation.

 

I am hard-pressed to identify any aspect of the Democrat Party agenda that does not inevitably put people’s lives at increased risk, from Welfare to public health and safety to energy and national security. Even their transportation priorities (electric vehicles, for example) create an increasing risk of loss of life or quality of life.

Welfare is not propping or giving people a hand up. It is trapping them in perpetual or generational poverty. Public education churns out illiterate cogs who can barely do math. And every effort to free people from these chains is deemed anti-government with the increased odds of a 5 a.m. visit from men in tactical gear to talk to you about the misinformation you’ve been peddling.

Democrats are anti-parent, anti-prosperity, anti-opportunity, anti-liberty, anti-human.

That’s the approach, but can we stick the landing?

 

 

The post The Democrat Party in One Word: Anti-Human appeared first on Granite Grok.

In light of Nobel Prizes being given to two researchers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations, beltway establishments like that of the Cato Institute have lauded praises onto the decision. To Cato, as evidenced by a blog post by Ian Vásquez, the production of these vaccines was a “victory of globalization!”

Whilst it certainly required a vast scale of global resources and networking, it was hardly what one could consider a free market victory. The development of these vaccines was done so by plundered resources, granted legal immunity, and captured market positions.

One aspect lost by the English Cato blog is that of Vásquez’s defense, or rather the lack thereof, of the funding of this research. Rather than discuss where the funding for research in COVID-19 vaccinations truly came from, he attempts to paint it as if it were purely a market phenomenon! In the Spanish edition of the blog, Vásquez adds two additional short paragraphs:

Global capital markets provided the necessary financing to these companies. Moderna was founded last decade as a private company with $40 million in venture capital funding; It then raised US$2.7 billion, then went public in 2018.

BioNTech raised hundreds of millions of dollars through global private stock listings before going public. As a giant multinational corporation, Pfizer was able to fund the $2 billion in testing, production and distribution of the vaccine out of its own pocket.

This portrayal is almost meant to paint the funding of this venture as mostly, if not all, by private capital. That ignores the massive stake that the government provided. Operation Warp Speed, as begun under Donald Trump, “invested” $12 billion in vaccine development; $2 billion was sent to Pfizer specifically, and over $4 billion to Moderna (the rest was distributed to other vaccine companies). The US government then spent $30 billion purchasing vaccines from these companies, $25 billion of which went to Pfizer.

The production of these vaccines was not done by pure consumer demand but rather by the expropriation of taxpayer money. There are, of course, two avenues for this. Taxation is the most direct. The state extracted wealth from taxpayers, who are no longer able to spend their funds elsewhere.

This is similar to Frédéric Bastiat’s “unseen,” or as Per Bylund dubs it, “the unrealized.” Lines of production that may have been undertaken are halted by the expropriation of these people by taxation. Much the same can be said about inflation. Inflating away to pay for these vaccines results in the ever-dreaded Cantillon effect, as well as the devaluing of the general currency. Those receiving the newly created currency benefit first, meaning, of course, the vaccine companies.

But that need not be the only line of attack against so-called claims that Operation Warp Speed was some free market venture. They may laude the supposed deregulation given to companies and the cutting of red tape as some evidence that it is a free market result, yet that hardly seems to be the case. The deregulation was only temporary and for a select few contracted companies.

To a Rothbardian, a monopoly means only that of a government-granted right. Police are monopolies on law enforcement. The post office is a monopoly. The British East India Company was long a monopoly. However, one could very well make the case for the concept of a “captured market.” This could likely be defined as a market through which regulation is used to stifle competition. This is done through the lobbying of the political body for regulations that drive up compliance costs for their newer competitors.

These vaccine manufacturers were given the near-exclusive right to produce treatments. In fact, other treatments were actively barred or lobbied against by the government itself. One need only look at the condemnation of Ivermectin after its popularization by Joe Rogan. Legally, unless a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, patients are not allowed to use it. Potential treatments for COVID-19 may have gone undiscovered because of overregulation. This regulation was excused and fast-tracked only for these vaccine manufacturers. That’s hardly free market, is it?

Perhaps the most damning of them all to the “free market effort” argument is the legal immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers. Since the Reagan administration, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has existed to provide compensation to those injured by a vaccine on the childhood vaccine schedule. Rather than the traditional tort law system in which those injured would be able to bring lawsuits against the manufacturer, they are compensated out of a fund. This fund is paid for by a tax on each vaccine. Thus, so long as the vaccination is on the schedule, there is no reason for specific liability over possible damages of a vaccine. Thus, absent true common law liability, the vaccine manufacturers are incentivized to act recklessly and get their vaccines to be granted this legal immunity.

However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not met this designation yet. These vaccines were granted special legal immunity under the PREP Act. This special immunity is set to expire in 2024, leaving two avenues for the manufacturers: lobby for a further reinstatement of the PREP Act protections or have their treatment placed on the children’s vaccine schedule. Otherwise, they face liability for the danger of their product. The latter seems to be the approach of Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration, which has added the COVID-19 vaccine to the 2023 vaccine schedule recommendations. The whole operation reeks of cronyism.

Every step of the manufacturing process is a deadly reminder of cronyism. It is funded by the taxpayer through taxation or inflation, both of which rob the market of genuine human economic action. The privileges of this expropriation are then given to a chosen few, and even those who would offer true market goods are prevented from providing them. Finally, it is then protected from any semblance of error by the government. At every step, the cronyists, who can lobby the government by any means they wish, protect their bottom dollar at the true expense of the citizenry. These vaccines are not a “free market miracle” but rather another sad product of cronyism.

David Brady is a Catholic libertarian and economics and finance undergraduate student at Florida Southern College. He is a co-host of the “Econphonics” podcast and a Mises Apprentice.

David Brady, Jr. | Mises Wire

Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.

The post COVID-19 Vaccinations Are Not a Free Market Victory appeared first on Granite Grok.

Several of our contributors have made this case. Biden is done. It is his last dance. The DNC is going through the motions to nominate him before he ‘falls ill’ (or just falls) so they can anoint his replacement before the general election.

But the political world isn’t acting like that, and a recent poll has inspired a collective dirtying of progressive diapers.

 

Voters in battleground states said they trusted Donald J. Trump over President Biden on the economy, foreign policy and immigration, as Mr. Biden’s multiracial base shows signs of fraying.

President Biden is trailing Donald J. Trump in five of the six most important battleground states one year before the 2024 election, suffering from enormous doubts about his age and deep dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy and a host of other issues, new polls by The New York Times and Siena College have found.

The results show Mr. Biden losing to Mr. Trump, his likeliest Republican rival, by margins of four to 10 percentage points among registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Mr. Biden is ahead only in Wisconsin, by two percentage points, the poll found.

 

Across the increasingly fruitless plain, Biden looks bad, but not that bad. Several of the gaps are well within the Left’s ability to compensate. And while the peasants are restless about many things, they say the economy will define their choice. And while Donald Trump may trounce his GOP primary challengers, his numbers against a generic Democrat in a general election are not great, which is important.

We need to remember that the Democrat experts suggesting Biden needs to step back all answer to Barry Obama. This poll and their reactions are less about framing the likely loss by Biden and more about preparing the post-nomination battle space for Biden’s departure. Democrat primary voters don’t choose the nominee; delegates and super-delegates do that. The system is fixed to ensure the Party Bosses get who they want -just ask Bernie Sanders.

Biden will be the nominee at the convention, but he will not be the general election candidate, and everything from now until then is stagecraft.

We can debate who the producers of this political theater might be, but Barry Obama has to be on that list. So, the real question isn’t how well Biden is doing in swing states or what Democrats will do in the wake of Biden’s declining popularity. They’ve already decided. The question is, who they will announce to replace Nominee Biden and when.

 

 

HT | Ace

The post What if Trump’s Swing State Lead Over Biden Grows to More Votes Than The Democrats Can Steal? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Pro-Palestinian demonstrations or marches are growing in size and intensity. They are worldwide and in every major city in America. As the number of gatherings increases, the purpose and motivation of the participants become more confusing. Is their presence a show of support for Hamas or the Palestinians or a condemnation of Israel and the Jews?

The signs and banners are many, with messages like Let Gaza Live, End the Seige of Gaza, Free Palestine, Stop US-Funded Genocide, and Genocide Joe, We will vote you out. Over 450 organizations have endorsed the march, says the International People’s Assembly. In addition to an “immediate ceasefire,” the protesters are also calling for an end to US military aid to Israel and an end to the blockade on Gaza.

For the most part, these demonstrations have been peaceful, although I do not call the burning of American and Israeli flags peaceful. There are members of Congress who are stirring the anti-Israel rhetoric, and I find it hard to believe these people are representing the feelings of their constituents.

The Squad, primarily Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), have been tireless in their anti-Israel rants. Let’s call it what it is – antisemitic statements that are meant to rile their pro-Palestinian or even pro-Hamas followers. It is one thing to have differences in this country. Our government was designed to have the checks and balances of opposing views. But there are times and situations where there is not a lot of room for debate, and the beheading of children, raping of women, and burning people alive should not require a lot of discussion for people with morals to see the wrong.

But it is not only complicated but impossible to acknowledge these atrocities by Hamas for Omar and Tlaib. They still see Israel, which was attacked on October 7 and lost over one thousand innocents to this barbaric tribe, as the oppressor. They have no problem supporting a group with the mantra, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That phrase has only one meaning, which is the obliteration of Israel and Jews. Tell me how these people are different from Adolph Hitler and his movement the world vowed would never happen again.

I have not been a fan of Hakeem Jeffries and do not understand his high status in the Democrat Party. He is the Minority Leader of the House, but other than his integral role in the harassment and impeachment of Donald Trump, I do not see his value to his Party. I watched him sit through the weeks of turmoil as the Republicans sought a compromise individual to replace Speaker McCarthy with this pompous Cheshire smirk on his face, obviously enjoying the opposition’s dysfunction. He can show leadership by getting these Squad members to tone down the rhetoric. If they want to be activists for Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim people who want to eradicate Israel, then they should resign their seats and join the ignorant college students protesting on campuses nationwide.

I am not talking about censorship or shutting down differences in opinion. What Omar and Tlaib are doing is anti-American and anti-Semitic, and will lead to violence and danger to Americans. These protests are getting more extensive and passionate, and it is just a matter of time before that passion turns to altercation. These two women are condoning atrocities and inciting violence. Is this not a situation in which a leader needs to rise and shut it down? Jeffries needs to turn the smirk into a scowl and get these women to understand their responsibilities to Congress, America, and, most importantly, their constituents. To sit back and do nothing, Jeffries is condoning and complicit in their words and actions.

 

The post Hakeem Jeffries, Stand Up And Shut Them Down appeared first on Granite Grok.

Over the weekend, I attended the Save the Children rally at the statehouse.  I made some brief remarks, which are approximated below.

The envelope I’m holding here is labeled with an X.  It identifies a government project, but we don’t know what it is.  It’s to help some group of people, but we don’t know who.  All we know is that it will be funded with a big pile of tax money.  Maybe maybe $10 million, or $100 million, or even more.

I have a couple of questions for you.

First, who thinks that this money will end up mostly in the hands of people who are good at getting their hands on tax money?

Second, who thinks that this money won’t end up helping the people it’s supposed to help, and may even end up hurting them?

See?  To know the answers to these questions, we don’t have to know what the project is, or who the people it’s supposed to help are, or how much money will be involved.

We all know what has to happen.

And we know why it has to happen that way.

If you’re spending tax money, it makes whatever you’re doing inherently political.

This means that the people who will end up spending the money will be the people who are the most motivated, the best organized, and often the least principled about spending other people’s money on their own agendas — whether they are politicians, or bureaucrats appointed by politicians, or just politically connected individuals.

Again, we don’t have to know the details to know that all of this is true.

But let’s open the envelope.

Oh, look — it turns out that X is the public school system. The people to be helped are 180,000 students. The amount to be spent is about $3.6 billion per year.

Does this change your mind?  In spite of what you just demonstrated that you know, do you want to believe that this will work out differently?

A lot of people do, and it’s why we’re in the situation we’re in.  It’s why we’re here today, at a rally to protect children from institutions that were originally set up to help them.

As the street artist Bansky noted, what all of us — including kids — really need is to be protected against all the measures that are taken to protect us.

We’re here because against all logic and experience, people continue to think that they can send their kids to inherently political institutions, and get non-political results — that they can avoid having things like CRT, DEI, mixed-sex sports and bathrooms, secret pronouns, and pornography in schools; and that they’ll actually get things like literacy, numeracy, and rationality.

Every few years, a competition is held.  Students from top engineering schools like MIT, Stanford, Purdue, Caltech, and so on, show up to look at something that seems to be a working perpetual motion machine.

They can’t touch it, or take it apart, but they can look at it from a distance, and make remote measurements.  And they’re supposed to figure out why it doesn’t actually work.

What these students know ahead of time is that it can’t actually work, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  What they don’t know is why it isn’t really an example of perpetual motion.  They have to figure that out.

But there is no chance that it actually works.  No matter how much they’d like it to.  No matter how much the world would benefit if it did.

And in exactly the same way, there is no chance that tax-funded institutions won’t end up being run by people who will use them primarily to advance their political and personal agendas, often at the expense of the people they’re supposed to be helping.

No matter how much we’d like them to.  No matter how much the world would benefit if they did.

We might call this the Second Law of Politics.  And it applies to schools, as it does in every other area.

All of which is to say: If you want to protect your kids, stop sending them to inherently political institutions and hoping for non-political results.

And stop wasting your time, energy, money, and passion trying to ‘fix’ those institutions by using statutes and departmental regulations to ‘force’ them to act in ways that are simply contrary to their natures.

Because that’s the political equivalent of trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

 

The post The Second Law of Politics appeared first on Granite Grok.

The specter of the assisted-suicide-to-orga- donation pipeline has again raised its unethical head. A story out of Belgium has people lining up to take sides and ask questions after a 16-year-old girl approved for euthanasia had her organs tested and then harvested.

 

In an October commentary piece for Epoch Times, patient rights champion, author, and podcast host Wesley J. Smith wrote about several countries where “shortage of organs for transplantation is threatening to unleash immoral and unethical remedies,” as assisted suicide threatens to become a too-profitable source for organs. He mentioned the example of a 16-year-old Belgian girl who requested assisted suicide due to a brain tumor — and agreed to have her organs harvested. The teen spent 36 hours sedated and intubated in an ICU for the “examination” of her organs. After that she was euthanized, and her organs were harvested.

 

We’ve slipped down this slope before on these pages. Canada, also mentioned in the linked piece, has widened the net of situations where you can ask to die while making “living” that much more difficult. It’s as if they want people to ask to kill themselves.

 

Canada’s socialized healthcare system is notorious for its protracted wait times for even the most basic tests. I can’t imagine the lockdowns, which kept millions from planned visits, treatments, or surveillance exams, have helped matters. And then there is the rise in mental health suicides. In other words, the government has, well and good, mucked it up. You can’t get the treatment you want or need. This results in an increased number of people feeling trapped in mental or physical illness. (…)

 

 

And then, they ask them if they will donate their organs. In the case of the Belgian teen, Smith is reported as observing that,

 

First, this was a minor terrified of decline who stated that by donating organs, she believed she could do some good. But for that option, she might not have made that decision.

Second, as far as we know, the girl wasn’t provided suicide prevention services nor assured that palliative care could alleviate her symptoms.

Third, the lengthy sedation and intubation to which she was subjected weren’t for her benefit, but to allow her organs to be tested and find compatible recipients. In other words, at least in some sense, once the girl asked to donate her organs, her body parts became more important than her life.

 

It has been suggested – just a few hours north of me – that the economically disadvantaged should get access to MAiD. It is an idea that is trending among ethicists ot such a degree that we should expect Inigo Montoya to leap into the room and tell us that the word ethicist does not mean what they think it means.

Infamous bioethicist Peter Singer thinks people should be killed for their organs, which must have the organ harvesters at Planned Parenthood grinning from ear to ear. If it is dying anyway, let’s make something good come from it, and ironically, the two are not far apart morally. If the government can sanction aborting humans at any age for their organs, aborting babies late-term to harvest theirs can’t be an ethical dilemma.

Who among us cannot picture women getting paid to carry babies to be aborted in the third trimester for their organs?

Note to those who thought we were a bit over the top when we call pro-abortion progressives the party of death.

 

Smith explained that Singer and those who agree with him aim “unscientifically [to] redefine death from a biological state of nonbeing into a sociological status of lesser value, equivalent to ‘as good as dead.’” And where have we heard that before? From the Nazis who committed the Holocaust, having set themselves up as arbiters of which lives were valuable.

 

It is the slipperiest of slopes, especially when the State has the power to define your mental health and massage the circumstances until more of us fit into the assisted suicide box they’ve created so some campaign donor can profit from a new natural resource for the organ harvesting market.

Talk about a threat to vulnerable populations.

And I want to think this is a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is already happening, just not here.

Or should I say, not yet?

 

The post Slippery Meet Slope: When You are Worth More Dead Than Alive appeared first on Granite Grok.

Alina Habba response to the Judge saying I’m not here to hear what he has to say: “Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney and why exactly are taxpayers dollars being used in this court room. The... Tom Bowler

We should learn a valuable lesson from a Democrat who recently learned a lesson. Long-time Dem billionaire does an about-face on Trump, admits the left has been blinded by TDS.

Democrat billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya, who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, admits that he now appreciates what former President Donald Trump accomplished during his time in the White House. “What those guys did was pretty incredible,” Palihapitiya noted.

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

He also said that Trump Derangement Syndrome caused more damage than Trump ever did because it caused people to not see his good work. “So much of the work that happened in that administration turned out to have been right, and that is what is so frustrating for me.”

“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?”

The lesson for us is not just that Trump accomplished many good things. Many of us already knew that.<

A larger lesson is that the Message matters much more than the Messenger. Or to put it another way, Policy matters much more than Personality. We should campaign on the basis of Policies, not Personalities. Our policies are better than the Democrats’ – our policies produce better results for the people. We should work to persuade people to choose which policies will make their lives better and to then vote for the candidate who espouses the better policies. One Democrat changed his mind all on his own by thinking about policy. Imagine how many more Democrats would change their minds if we worked to persuade them to think about Policies, not Personalities. Part II will have more thoughts about campaign strategy emphasizing Policies, not Personalities.

The post We Should Learn a Lesson – Part I appeared first on Granite Grok.

Election fraud is making headlines in three Democratic states – Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. In Connecticut, the situation took a dramatic turn as allegations of fraud led to a court-ordered new primary election.

Bridgeport Superior Court Judge William Clark decided to overturn the results of a Democratic mayoral primary due to claims of absentee ballot abuse. What prompted this decision? Well, it all began when a video surfaced online, seemingly showing a supporter of the incumbent Democrat Mayor Joe Ganim, stuffing stacks of papers into a ballot drop box.

Meanwhile, over in Massachusetts, a Democratic mayoral candidate is facing accusations of bribing residents to vote. City officials in Springfield claim they witnessed voters being brought to City Hall for early voting, with some expecting cash in return for voting for Democratic candidate Justin Hurst.

New Jersey has its share of election fraud cases as well. State Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office announced state election fraud charges related to mail-in ballots and voter registrations in the 2020 and 2021 elections. Paterson City Council President Alex Mendez (D) faces additional charges in a 2020 election fraud case. Allegations suggest that Mendez’s campaign collected unsealed ballots, inspected them to determine if they were cast for him, and replaced those that weren’t. These replacement ballots allegedly came from voters’ mailboxes, painting a concerning picture of voter manipulation.

Mendez’s response to the charges has been one of defense, claiming that the accusations are unjust and only brought because previous charges weren’t progressing as expected.

Another Democratic candidate in New Jersey and a former candidate for Plainfield mayor in 2021, Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim, found himself charged with “election fraud and other crimes.” According to the state’s Attorney General, Ibezim instructed his associates to complete blank voter registration applications and deliver nearly 1,000 of them to a post office.

Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim has been charged with several crimes related to election fraud. These include:

• Election fraud is a second-degree crime.
• Criminal attempt to commit false registration or transfer, a third-degree crime.
• Tampering with public records is a third-degree crime.
• Forgery is a third-degree crime.
• Hindering apprehension or prosecution, a third-degree crime.
• Falsifying or tampering with records is a fourth-degree crime.

These charges stem from an Office of Public Integrity and Accountability’s (OPIA) Corruption Bureau investigation. Ibezim allegedly directed associates and campaign volunteers to complete blank voter registration applications based on forms with voter information he provided to the group. He then allegedly brought a large white garbage bag filled with nearly 1,000 of these fake voter registration applications to the post office to mail to the Union County Commissioner of Registration.

The investigation into Dr. Henrilynn Ibezim’s alleged election fraud and other related crimes fits into the larger context of election fraud in New Jersey in several ways:

• The election fraud cases in New Jersey, including those involving mail-in voting, are relatively rare and often easy to detect. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Paterson scandal, which involved allegations of mail-in voting fraud, was not the norm but rather an exception.
• The investigation into Ibezim’s alleged crimes is part of a broader effort to uphold the integrity of the democratic process in New Jersey. The Attorney General’s office has proactively addressed these allegations, as seen in the case of Alex Mendez and other politicians.
• The allegations of election fraud in New Jersey have been a topic of national discussion, with President Donald Trump using the Paterson scandal to argue against mail-in voting. This has highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the voting process.
• The election fraud cases in New Jersey, including those involving mail-in voting, have shown that even when such incidents occur, they are typically easy to detect and prosecute. This suggests that while the threat of election fraud exists, the safeguards in place to prevent it are effective.
• The allegations of election fraud in New Jersey have also highlighted the importance of voter registration and the process of voting. In the case of Ibezim, the alleged crime involved submitting voter registration applications for people who were not eligible to vote.

The incident involving absentee ballot abuse in Connecticut is an unusual case specific to Bridgeport, a working-class city known for its history of voting irregularities. This activity is often called “ballot harvesting,” where campaign workers or volunteers visit potential voters, encourage them to fill out absentee ballots, and then collect and submit them on their behalf. However, this kind of collection effort is banned in Connecticut, raising concerns about the integrity of the election process.

To provide some context, these election-related criminal cases aren’t isolated incidents. There have been at least three such cases nationwide, with two involving this year’s elections and two related to prior elections. As for the future, a new primary date is yet to be set in Connecticut. Judge Clark has given lawyers a 10-day window to work with city and state election officials to determine a potential date for the new election.

The post Election Fraud Investigations Against Democrats Underway in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey appeared first on Granite Grok.

One of the things that often goes under the radar is the appointment and confirmation of federal judges. The process is near constant, but unless the appointee came from a Republican, the media shows little interest, but the bench continues to be a front in the war on liberty whether we are watching or not.

I’m as guilty as anyone. With such a target-rich environment, it is easy to leave this one to Congress, which is the last thing any of us should do. But we do it—most of the time. Every now and again, a name rises to the surface of the noise that is so good or so bad we take notice.

Or we stumble over it on X (still pronounced Twitter).

Ted Cruz shared a clip of himself (he is a politician) talking about “Biden’s pick to be the Judge for the District of Oregon.” Mustafa Kasubhai (he says) “is an outright Marxist” who “has written love letters about communism.”

Team Biden isn’t even being coy. But Kasubhai has been on the bench in Oregon for at least five years. He is supported by all the left people, probably because he is on a mission to redefine property. He likes Marxism, and that’s Marxism. The State owns it all. You own nothing. Not even yourself.

I can only assume he is a fan of asset forfeiture.

Here is Senator Cruz spelling it out for the cheap seats.

 

Biden’s pick to be the Judge for the District of Oregon, Mustafa Kasubhai, is an outright Marxist.

He has written love letters about communism and wants to redefine property.

Communism is not theoretical—in Cuba, my family suffered under it. pic.twitter.com/TqdF7sblnk

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 5, 2023

The post A Guy Writing Love Letters to Marxism Might not be the Best Candidate to be a Federal Judge appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) released new jobs data on Friday. According to the report, seasonally adjusted total nonfarm jobs rose 150,000 jobs in October, month over month. The unemployment rate rose slightly from 3.8 percent to 3.9 percent over the same period.

The headline payroll increase of 150,000, however, was possibly among the best news to be found in today’s new jobs data, however. Once we delve more deeply into the numbers, we find substantial evidence that the “strength” of the job situation is greatly overstated by the payroll numbers while employed persons, wages, and other measures point to trouble ahead in in economy already strained by growing bankruptcies, mounting debts, and disappearing savings.

For example, more than one-third of all new employment growth in the payroll survey for October came in the form of government jobs. Specifically, out of the alleged 150,000 new jobs produced in October (month over month), 51,000 of them were government jobs. Looking at growth in new government jobs as a percentage of all new jobs, October’s measure of 34 percent was the second-highest in more than a decade. Since 2010, only July of this year showed a higher proportion of government jobs as the driver of new job creation. Moreover, the trend over the past two years has been clearly upward:

In other words, over the past two years, the “good” jobs numbers have depended more and more on growth in government jobs to deliver those “blow out” jobs totals we’ve seen since over the past two years.

Where is the money coming from for all these government jobs? Tax revenues are falling, so a lot of that government employment must come from deficit spending. As Daniel Lacalle recently noted, the current claims of continued economic growth have been made possible my immense amounts of deficit spending. That is, without our ongoing trillion-dollar-plus deficits, economic growth measures would turn negative, since—as we’ve seen—as much as a third of new job creation would vanish. Or, as Lacalle puts it: “the country is in a recession disguised by bloated deficit spending.”

Employed Persons vs. Total Jobs

So far, we’ve only looked at the payroll survey, however. The payroll survey (i.e., the establishment survey)—which estimates total jobs, both part time and full time—shows actual job growth. The household survey, on the other hand, shows that the total number of employed persons actually fell by 348,000 in October, month over month. That’s the largest month-over-month decline in employed persons since April 2020, in the midst of the Covid Panic:

Moreover, the gap between the two surveys in estimated job growth has repeatedly grown larger since early 2022. Prior to that time, the two surveys tended to track together. This has not been the case in recent years, however, with the establishment survey claiming significantly more growth than the household survey. For October, this gap was at 2.6 million:

This gap also suggests that more workers are holding multiple jobs. Today’s jobs data does indeed show that multiple job holders rose to a new high. Of course, multiple jobholding could be a sign of a boom, as was the case in 2007 and 2019. However, in an economy marked by entrenched price inflation, as is now the case, a rising number of multiple job holders may be a sign that more workers must work more hours to make ends meet.  This latter scenario is plausible given that today’s employment data also points to continued slowing in hourly earnings. Year over year, average hourly earnings in October were up 4.1 percent. That the most sluggish growth rate in 29 months.

Another piece of bad news from today’s job report is the fact that “temporary help services” went deeper into negative territory. Year over year, temporary help services were down 6.1 percent. That’s the largest drop since the Covid Panic, and strongly suggests that recession is on the way. During the last four recessions, negative temporary job growth has preceded recessions, and year-over-year temp-job growth has now been negative for eleven months in a row:

Overall, however, employment tends to be a lagging indicator of where the economy is headed. Since the early 1970s, significant job losses tend to materialize only after a recession has already started.

We must look elsewhere to get some more reliable hints about what the future holds. Such measures include the yield curve, whish is currently negative and points to a brewing recession. The money supply—which is currently experiencing the largest declines since the Great Depression—also points to declining economic activity. Meanwhile, bankruptcies are rising, the saving rate is falling, and the leading economic index continues to drop.

The Experts Assure Us Everything Is Great

None of this prevents the corporate media from continuing to insist that the economy couldn’t be much better than it is. Phrases like “there’s no recession in sight” are a favorite phrase, and an article by Greg Ip at The Wall Street Journal this week carried the title “The Economy Is Great. Why Are Americans in Such a Rotten Mood?”

The Ip article continues a growing tradition of high-earning economists and reporters acting perplexed as to why anyone could think the economy isn’t excellent. Paul Krugman, for example, recently declared the economy to be “surreally good.”

Such analyses, of course, ignore numbers such as October’s loss of 348,000 jobs and thoroughly lackluster wage growth. Moreover, there is little acknowledgement that consumers are acutely aware of the real-world effects of price inflation since the covid crisis.  Shelter prices, for example, have increased 17 percent since 2021 while average earnings have increased by only 13 percent. In many markets, rising prices are far worse than this.

True believers in the consumer price index attempt to assure us that price inflation is now fully under control, and real wages are now headed upward. To find the good news in these claims, however, we’d have to forget that real wages went down for a full two years from 2021 to 2023, and that the CPI likely understates the true magnitude of rising prices. In any case, the fact that real wage may be positive this month for many people doesn’t magically erase the pain that consumers enduring throughout 2021 and 2022. Even worse, as many saw their real wages fall, they exhausted their savings in the process.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has painted itself into a corner, and it has to choose between continued economic weakness, or to unleash more price inflation on the economy.  With 40-year highs in price inflation barely behind us (let’s hope), inflation indicators remains double the Fed’s arbitrary goal of two-percent inflation. The Fed has been forced to allow interest rates to rise in order to combat this ongoing price inflation, but rising interest rates will lead to more bankruptcies and the end of countless zombie companies that depend on ultra-low interest rates to stay afloat. Those business that don’t fail will face higher debt costs and less access to capital as new business loans become more expensive. This all means layoffs and falling demand for workers.

Does the Fed have a plan to pull a rabbit out of hat and steer the economy into a soft landing? Of course not. It never has had a plan. After all, Fed economists were still claiming there was no recession as late as mid-2008, when the nation had been in recession for months. Fed forecasts are notoriously unreliable as they virtually always err on the side of promulgating sunny news about the economy.

Once the Fed decides to take action, however, its options are limited. Then, as now, the only tool in the Fed’s tool box is to force down interest rates and flood the economy with new money at the first sign of trouble. Whether or not this happens at the first undeniable sign of a jobs recession will depend on whether the Fed—for political reasons—fears price inflation more than recession. Wall Street is betting that the Fed will return to dovish policy again soon in an attempt to counter bad employment news: markets ended up this week in response to the weak jobs numbers.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is executive editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power and Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has a bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado. He was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Breaking Away: The Case of Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities and Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

 

Ryan McMaken |  Mises Wire

Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.

The post October’s Sobering Jobs Report Adds to Mounting Bad Economic News appeared first on Granite Grok.

The healthcare industry is growing and trained and skilled workers are in demand. It’s an industry that never rests, and for that reason, it offers plenty of career advancement opportunities. If you’re currently working as a lab technician and starting to question what the best steps are for career advancement, you may want to consider obtaining your medical laboratory science degree. Expanding your knowledge and understanding is always wise, as it opens a variety of career doors.

Here’s an in-depth look at why it makes sense to get a medical laboratory science degree.

You’re Ready for a New Challenge

When you start a career, things tend to begin excitingly. You may feel passionate about working in the healthcare industry and look forward to how you can help people. Over time, as you get better at your job, it can start to feel a bit boring. Perhaps you no longer feel that passion or the thrill of a challenge. It’s at this point that some soul-searching should occur.

The healthcare industry should never be thought of as stagnant, as there are always new opportunities out there. Taking the steps to advance in your career and take on more responsibilities may be exactly what you need.

There Is an Online Option Available

Sometimes people choose not to pursue a career goal or advancement simply because the steps necessary seem too hard. If you’re busy thinking you don’t have time to attend classes in person, and that getting your degree is out of the question, it’s time to think again. There are medical technologist certification programs online that can provide you with the scheduling flexibility you need, and make it possible to juggle everything at once.

The laboratory technologist (MLT) to medical laboratory science (MLS) degree can provide you with the advanced skills and knowledge required to work in all different areas of healthcare. That can include genetics, hematology, and microbiology to name a few.

After completing the program, you’ll be able to perform laboratory assays on both human and other types of specimens in an array of settings. You will use those skills in research, clinical, forensic laboratories and commercial laboratories.

Deepen Your Skills and Knowledge – Earn a Higher Salary

Whenever you deepen your skills and knowledge in your career, you are opening the door to more possibilities which typically means earning a higher salary. When you bring more knowledge to the table it’s only natural to demand more money.

A great example is that of a microbiologist. According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, microbiologists had a median pay of $81,990 per year in 2022. Compare that to the salary of a clinical laboratory technician with a median pay of $57,380 and that’s a sizeable difference.

It really comes down to whether or not you’re ready for a new path in your career, and if you’re ready to learn the skills necessary to advance. Getting a medical laboratory science degree can help you determine your next career goal.

The post 3 Reasons to Get a Medical Laboratory Science Degree – Advancing Your Career appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democracy is a PROCESS. Democracy is NOT a RESULT. Democracy is a process where voters get to vote for the candidates of their choice, i.e., the ruling class does NOT get to choose the candidates by, for example, bringing bogus “criminal” prosecutions of candidates they don’t want to be elected.

Charges to prevent or severely compromise the ability of these “unacceptable” candidates to run for office.

Democracy is a process where the voters are able to fully inform themselves prior to voting, e.g., the ruling class does not get to classify information it wants to keep from the voters as “disinformation,” and the “media” and big tech then dutifully censor that information.

Democracy is a process where elections are fair … i.e., no mail-in voting, no drop-boxes, no Zuckerbucks, no stopping the count in the middle of the night, etc., etc., etc.

Matt Wilhelm, the leader of the New Hampshire House Democrats, does NOT believe in actual democracy. He is a communist who not surprisingly, believes in communism.

To Wilhelm, democracy is a result where only the candidates approved by the ruling class – and to be clear, Wilhelm believes, just like Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. believed, that he and his ilk are our natural rulers .- get elected. Wilhelm is a communist.

 

The post Night Cap: No Comrade Wilhelm … Democracy Is NOT On The Ballot appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democrats are always looking for ways to make liberty so cumbersome that you might decide not to bother. Bury them in paperwork. Clutter up the statues with unintelligible gibberish that even a lawyer can’t unravel. Make lawfare more important than freedom.

Wear them down until they break.

When it comes to guns, tyrants and hoplophobes alike talk about banning things, but that’s for their base. They know they can’t. But they have to try. It looks good on their resume, and every now and then, they succeed, even if it is only for a while. Maybe a few years. Until a court or judge tosses it out, but it sets a tone you can resonate in the echo chamber.

Like demanding background checks for ammunition, which is not new, but this week it’s back.

 

The Democrats are pushing the Ammunition Modernization and Monitoring Oversight Act, or AMMO Act for short. In addition to requiring background checks for ammo purchases, Redstate noted the Act would also limit the number of rounds law-abiding citizens can buy over a five-day period and mandate that ammo dealers get a license separate from the Federal Firearms License (FFL) required for gun sales.

[Rep. Robert] Garcia commented on the legislation, saying, “If we’re ever going to really take on the gun violence epidemic in this country, we need to regulate ammo accessibility. This bill aims to protect the American public from the devastating violence that occurs when individuals have access to unlimited amounts of weaponry.”

 

AMMO would also ban out-of-state purchases, which is already the law of the Land of California. A practice we should expect to see pop up in state legislatures looking for new ways to limit your rights, with Lewiston happening just in time for the legislative bill writing season.

Timing is everything.

New Hampshire doesn’t have any of those in the mill. We’ve got a handful of new proposals that, in their service request form, are too vague to be discrened in detail. But Democrat David Meuse has requested legislation titled “relative to repealing limited liability for manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition.”

Meuse is also one of those civil Democrats. He compares Republicans to the Taliban, advocates for creating TREs, compares ICE to the Gestapo and shouts misinformation about guns at every opportunity.

From here (And this is just a guess), this new bill looks like he wants everyone in the firearms and ammunition supply chain on the hook for what people do with their products.

That is a  curious choice for a party that takes no responsibility for what its anti-crime and violence agenda has done to increase crime and violence.

I know, he’s a Democrat. That’s how they roll.

How about one “relative to repealing limited liability for manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of COVID Vaccines treatments and vaccines“?

No?

 

 

The post DC Dems Want Separate Background Checks for Ammunition appeared first on Granite Grok.

On November 8, most of the Republicans still in the race for the party’s 2024 nomination gather in Miami for the third GOP presidential debate, hosted by NBC in partnership with Rumble, a Canada-based online media platform.

We’ll pause for a moment for station identification while you ask yourself, “Why?” The previous debates had all the charm of a dumpster fire. They didn’t help the candidates differentiate themselves from each other or from former President Donald J. Trump, whom the polls all agree is the person most likely to win the nomination.

If debates don’t do either of those things and don’t help the party grow its vote, why have them? No one, comparatively speaking, is watching. The numbers are way down from the previous two cycles, something most analysts attribute to Trump’s absence.

There may be a better explanation. Too many candidates on the stage, too much name-calling, and too many interruptions make it difficult for even well-informed voters to follow what’s going on. (RELATED: PETER ROFF: Politicians Are Digging America Into A Deeper Hole With Their Earmark Obsession)

It’s easy to see why. The format lends itself to chaos. The media personalities who ask the questions invariably focus on things Republican primary voters don’t care much about. Instead of asking about jobs, taxes, and the crisis on the border, the handful of presidential wannabes who’ve qualified for a place on the stage get questions about abortion, January 6 and, believe it or not, UFOs.

The lack of substance damages the party’s image. That’s especially painful given the surveys conducted by reputable firms like Gallup that now show the American electorate trusts the Republicans more than the Democrats to handle what survey respondents identify as the country’s most pressing issues.

It’s not all hopeless. Changes can be made that will help, starting with the abolition of the ridiculous rule that allows one candidate to jump in with a response if one of the others mentions them. If it can’t be eliminated, it should be modified so that the time taken to respond is deducted from what’s been allotted for closing statements.

If the candidates are forced to choose between “talking now or talking later,” things would move along more swiftly. It would certainly reduce the grandstanding that plagued the first two contests.

The quality of the conversation would also be improved if the moderators’ questions required the candidates to discuss their solutions to the nation’s problems compared to President Joe Biden’s. That’s really the point, isn’t it? Not whether former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has a better plan to deal with the national debt than Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would do a better job protecting the U.S. border with Mexico than North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

Everyone on the stage in Miami should be focused on who’s the best candidate to go against Biden, not each other. That may sound like it puts the cart before the horse, but it’s really the most important thing. GOP primary voters and caucus attendees should come away from each debate with a growing sense of which candidate provides the best opportunity to beat the incumbent president.

Trump will be in Miami – but at a rally, not the debate. He’ll crash the news coverage without setting foot on the stage, which is how he wants it. The polls have him casting a long shadow over the others. That’s good for him, but it doesn’t guarantee the best ideas will carry the day, let alone get an airing. If the Republicans want to win, they have to provide the American people with what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used to call “an agenda worth voting for.”

Absent that, they’re more likely to lose than not. That means getting Trump on the debate stage, which won’t happen until the field narrows to the point he concludes that remaining out of the debates creates the opportunity for one of the other candidates to break out of the pack and challenge his considerable lead.

Party leaders like RNC Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel and Dave Bossie, the Maryland GOP committeeman who’s been tasked with overseeing them, are smart politicos. They understand the stakes. Trump-less debates heavy on the harangues with little substance don’t help the party win. GOP voters deserve better.

A former UPI senior political writer and U.S. News and World Report columnist, Peter Roff is now a senior fellow at several public policy organizations. Contact him at RoffColumns AT gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter and TruthSocial @TheRoffDraft.

Peter Roff  | Daily Caller

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Why Are The Republican Presidential Debates So Bad? appeared first on Granite Grok.

A recent article was headlined “The true cause of failed NH education” and tried to pin one person with education failures. Freshman State Representative Mike Belcher tries to blame NH House Education Committee Chairman Rick Ladd. The article is filled with misinformation and half-truths.

Let me start by stating that I have served with Rick Ladd on the Education Committee for over a decade. For the past three years, I have been his Vice Chairman. Let me tell you a little about the background of Rick Ladd. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been active on multiple boards in his town in addition to serving in the NH House. Regarding his legislative record, he has co-sponsored Education Freedom Account bills and led the committee to get passage.

He has championed legislation to end discrimination against religious schools and advocated for career and technical education programs. He was instrumental in the development of the educator code of conduct. He sponsored legislation to get concentration on the basic core subjects. He has co-sponsored bills to phase out the Interest and Dividends tax, to require parental consent for non-academic student surveys, to allow greater innovation in public schools, to combat bullying, and to prohibit requiring districts to implement the Common Core standards. I could go on and on.

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

Getting back to the article, Representative Belcher starts by claiming, “I have not been allowed success in accomplishing a single reform to New Hampshire schools.” He implies that Chairman Ladd is the reason. He states specifically that Chairman Ladd is responsible for the “awful” state of New Hampshire schools. He claims that House Democrats cannot win because they do not have the numbers yet they “keep winning.” This is totally false. The Republicans in the House have a majority of 2 or 3. We have an evenly divided committee, and the votes on the House floor are dependent on who shows up that day. It does not help that some Republicans would fight fellow Republicans rather than work to pass reasonable legislation and defend the great legislation we have passed over the past few years. Representative Belcher stated that he “came to win at any cost,” but his actions instead show that he came to fight at any cost. Do we want legislators whose aim is to win or fight at any cost? At any cost? Are we not elected to work for our constituents and the people of NH?

The most egregious claim is that Chairman Ladd is the reason for everything from school violence to academic proficiency decreases to increases in costs per pupil. Falsehoods abound in his article. Let me mention just a few statements that are absolutely untrue: Ladd voted to allow men to use girl’s bathrooms, he demanded that Education Freedom Accounts not be expanded, pushed forward civics education knowing it would be provided by the far left and was instrumental on killing a bill on campus freedom of speech. He also accuses Chairman Ladd of running the committee by not allowing opposing views from the “right.” The translation is that Chairman Ladd has had to try and keep Representative Belcher from wandering off into his conspiracy theories while questioning people testifying.

If there is anyone who should be removed from the House Education Committee, it is Representative Mike Belcher.

 

The post If Anyone Should Be Removed From the House Education Committee, It Is Representative Mike Belcher appeared first on Granite Grok.

The New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA) put forward an outrageous school policy (JBAB) that applies to Transgender students. This policy was then adopted by several school boards across New Hampshire, in spite of its requirement for school staff to lie to parents if their child decides to use a different name in school.

JBAB includes this provision under PRIVACY (emphasis mine).

 

A. Privacy
The Board recognizes a student’s right to keep private one’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation at school. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name, or gender assigned at birth also may constitute confidential information. School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others, including parents

This policy is now being challenged in the Supreme Court after a parent sued the Manchester School District because they refused to share information on a student with their parent.

The policy also includes a provision that requires girls’ teams to allow boys identifying as females to be included. This provides a physical advantage to the biological males who identify as females. This can mean a girl competing for college scholarships to lose out to the biological males.

But even worse is the physical harm that girls have been suffering at the hands of these biological males.

G. Physical Education Classes & Intramural Sports
Transgender and gender nonconforming students shall be permitted to participate in physical education classes and intramural sports in a manner consistent with their gender identity.
H. Interscholastic Competitive Sports Teams
Transgender and gender nonconforming students shall be permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics in a manner consistent with their gender identity.

You can see how a girl playing volleyball was injured by a biological boy who was allowed to play on the opponent’s team because he identified as a female.

Recently, a girl playing field hockey had her teeth knocked out by a biological boy who was playing against her team. This is another example of a girl receiving a severe injury because of policies like JBAB. All of this would end tomorrow if girls would refuse to play against teams that allow these biological boys on their teams. How many more of these girls have to endure a serious injury before someone puts an end to this?

NHSBA has since withdrawn its support for JBAB–a wise decision given the damage this is having on parents and girls. But that doesn’t mean all school districts have abandoned their support for JBAB. You should check your school district’s website and look for school board policies. Look for JBAB and read it. If this policy is still in your district, gather parents to request the removal of JBAB from the school board policies. If the NHSBA is unwilling to support this policy, why would any school board keep it? Will they take responsibility if a girl is injured in the restroom? Or on a sports team? Of course not.

If they aren’t willing to take responsibility for the damage to girls based on their vote, then they need to be removed from the school board along with the policy.

 

The post Will Your School Board Take Responsibility if Your Daughter’s Teeth Are Knocked Out? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Essex-Westford School District’s equity policy considers the nation’s economic status a result of genocide, slavery, white privilege, ongoing systematic oppression, and more.

“This nation would not have evolved as it has without the genocide of the indigenous people, nor would the economic infrastructure exist as it does without the enslavement of native African people and their descendants,” the policy states. “In an effort to recognize and undo the harm of centuries of systemic inequities and oppression, we begin with this lens and framework.”

C29_-Equity-Policy

It continues that these victimized populations are still marginalized in today’s oppressive society.

It states,

“EWSD recognizes the impact of systemic oppression of groups of people impacted by histories and current experiences of marginalization in addition to race including gender, abilities, and other identities. Given that identities are intersectional–meaning people have race, gender, abilities and other aspects of self, at the same time–this policy was developed to create equity in EWSD.”

Redistribution of resources

The policy also has a definition for the term equity. It is,

“Distributing resources, power and decision making to marginalized groups or individuals in order to redress marginalization.”

In another part, it states,

“Equity recognizes that economic, social, political, and educational historical and current practices have created inequities that require explicit, intentional intervention.”

The policy alleges that resources are already directed towards preferred groups over oppressed ones. It defines systematic inequities as,

“Outcomes that occur when the fabric of organizations, institutions, governments or social networks contains an embedded bias which provides advantages for some members and marginalizes or produces disadvantages for other members.”

White privilege

There is also a definition of “privileged positions” stating that whole groups of people can be assumed only to have what they have because of special privileges due to their skin color or other identities.

It states,

“Unearned social power afforded by the formal and informal institutions of society to ALL members of a dominant group (e.g. white privilege, male privilege, etc.). Privilege is usually invisible to those who have it because they are taught not to see it, but nevertheless, it puts them at an advantage over those who do not have it.“

Other cultures still oppressed?

In the definition of “Non-Dominant culture,” it implies that still currently suppressed groups are experiencing oppression, and the oppressors may not even realize it.

“These attributes are actively or unconsciously oppressed by the dominant culture.  This results in a lack of representation in education, artistic expression, political process, decision-making communication, and business.”

On radar of Parents Defending Education

The policy can be found at the Parent’s Defending Education incident report section. The national organization has been in Vermont and elsewhere tracking when schools adopt policies that violate the Constitutional rights of parents via politicized curricula, equity policies, and more.

Their introduction reads,

“We believe our children’s education should be based on scholarship and facts, and should nurture their development into the happy, resilient, free-thinking, educated citizens every democracy needs. Our classrooms should include rigorous instruction in history, civics, literature, math, the sciences, and the ideas and values that enrich our country.”

They also detail how political activist organizations are behind this effort to indoctrinate schools.

“Schools are adopting this illiberal mission at the behest of a narrow group of activists, union leaders and high-priced consultants— without the consent of the students, parents, and communities whose interests the schools are supposed to serve. Those who dissent risk being called ugly names and shamed into silence.”

 

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle

Michael Bielawski | Vermont Daily Chronicle

The post Local School District Policy Says, US Society Based on Genocide, Slavery, White Privilege appeared first on Granite Grok.

On October 7th, the Communist-who-calls-himself-a-Democrat Leader of the Democrats in the New Hampshire House issued a short tweet advising that he was praying for the Israelis murdered by Hamas. Since then, no mention of the matter. It’s not a local issue, you say?

Well, since October 7th, Matty Wilhelm has tweeted multiple times regarding U.S. House Speaker Johnson, attacking Johnson, of course (examples below).

He has also tweeted in support of “moderate” Republicans forming a coalition in the U.S. House with the Democrats, and the U.A.W. strike, and about U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville. But not a mention of the antisemitism in his Party. More specifically, not a word of criticism for “the Squad” supporting the jihadists. Apparently, given that Matty deems it appropriate to comment (multiple times since October 7th) on Speaker Johnson, he doesn’t have a problem with Rashida from-the-river-to-the-sea Tlaib and other pro-jihadist Democrats in the U.S. House.

Also … not a mention, let alone a condemnation, of the numerous incidents of antisemitism by college students, not a mention of the terrorists who have entered the country through the open southern border, not a mention of the pro-jihadist rallies in NYC, DC, etc., etc., etc..

Given that Matty considers himself New Hampshire’s moral compass AND that he regularly uses his twitter to tell us how our moral compasses should be calibrated, what to make of all this silence?

The post New Hampshire House Democrat Leader Is Soft On AntiSemitism appeared first on Granite Grok.

In the name of equity or some other progressive god, the State of California embarked on a pilgrimage to the minimum wage holy land. A search for a price-point on an hour of labor most likely to accumulate Democrat votes without any regard for the cost to voters.

For years, it was the fight for 15. Get the minimum wage to 15.00 per hour. But no one can afford to live on that in a progressive-run economy, so these days, the number is much higher. California, a leader in bad progressive ideas, has upped the ante.

 

In mid-October, the state of California enacted a new minimum wage law which will push the hourly rate to at least $16. This brings it up by $0.50 — the previous state standard had been $15.50 per hour, and will remain so until the bill goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024. …

But there’s a catch. The law ensures all fast food workers — including those at McDonald’s and the like — will be paid $20 per hour, effective April 1, 2024. And a newly-established California fast food council may raise the rate again after January 1, 2025, according to the California Labor & Employment Law Blog.

 

McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski shared thoughts about how that would impact their business. It will demand higher pricing. He never mentions more automation, but that’s always been a component of addressing political overreach on the value of labor. Businesses look for ways to cover the increased cost of doing business. Impacts include fewer employees, fewer full-time employees, changes to hours of operation, reduced benefits, menu options, and price increases.

While Kempczinski doesn’t necessarily agree with Newsomism’s impact on the cost of labor, he does see it as an opportunity. McDonalds is huge. It can more easily adjust its stride to compensate. Many of its competitors cannot.

 

“Longer term, what we’ve been talking about with our franchisees is this is an opportunity for us to gain share because this is an impact that’s going to hit all of our competitors. … We believe we’re in a better position than our competitors to weather this,” he added.

 

He is not wrong. Califorina’s effort to lift people will do the opposite. There will be fewer entry-level jobs as smaller operations get wiped out, fewer jobs in total. Those who get work will work less and end up with less despite the state hiking the hourly pay rate. The broader impact on the economy will affect other businesses with a more significant net loss of wealth.

But Mcdonald’s will still be there.

 

HT | MSN

The post California Helps McDonald’s Wipe Out Its Competition appeared first on Granite Grok.