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.

In a feeble effort at deflection, Hunter Biden went to the media this week to plead his case that he is the victim of all the attention focused on the nation’s most prominent crime family, The Biden Cartel. He claims that he is being wrongly labeled a drug addict, which he feels is taking advantage of his unfortunate medical condition.

Sorry Hunter, but nobody is buying your story because you already documented your sorry saga on websites like Pornhub, where you featured your drug and sex addiction. Your self-produced internet documentary was filmed at the same time you were spearheading your money-making campaign, extorting millions from countries around the globe, and bartering access to your father when he was Vice President and President.

We have suffered through your network interviews and discussions about your book. We have seen documentaries on FOX that delved into your life to show you are a low-quality individual. We got the play-by-play of you first denying your child, then doing all you could to avoid responsibility and support, and then finally settling to avoid a very embarrassing court case in Arkansas that you knew would not end in your favor. We even watched as you hid in the White House for weeks to avoid being served papers for this custody battle. Could there be a better example of the coward you are? No.

To show where you get the roots of your make-up, we witnessed your father, our President, deny your daughter’s existence for years until he and Jill finally succumbed to pressure and announced their new granddaughter to the world. You definitely are your father’s son, both cut from the same cloth. The Biden Family had a break for a few weeks while the House was in disarray with no Speaker. With that situation resolved, the worst outcome possible for the Bidens may have been Mike Johnson’s election to take the Gavel. A no-nonsense, fact-driven guy who may pave the way for Comer or Jordan to proceed with Articles of Impeachment against Joe Biden. That is why you see Hunter’s attempt to change the focus and look for empathy. It was a weak effort and short-lived.

The evidence is stacking up against Joe Biden. The copies of checks are tracking payments to the President, and the thousands of emails on Joe’s pseudonym email accounts may uncover a plethora of damning evidence. There may be as many as 82,000 pages of emails, which makes Hilary’s stash look amateurish. How did Joe have any time to perform the duties of his job while writing so many emails? Maybe that is why he needs a long weekend every week at the beach. He must be in the basement glued to his keyboard. The story unfolding may explain why Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer are positioning themselves as alternatives, as I don’t think anyone sees Biden on the 2024 ballot. It may be his age, health, or impeachment, but I think the end of Biden’s political career is being written. I won’t shed a tear at the end of this saga.

 

The post Hunter, You Are Not A Victim appeared first on Granite Grok.

Your State probably has a commission for everything, with at least a handful of professional associations, some of whom are funded with dues from local governments to lobby on their behalf, against you.

Two examples from the Granite State are the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) and the New Hampshire School Board Association (NHSBA). They exist to make taxpayers’ lives miserable at the hands of state and local government.

Our NHSBA famously crafted policy JBAB to address the individuals these schools were grooming to be gender-non-conforming, which they have since had to disavow. Schools were and still are getting sued. There’s no statutory support, JBAB encourages teachers and staff to lie to parents, and it has components that violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Someone thought it was a great idea, and they still do, but they can’t stand behind it and have effectively cut the districts loose to fend for themselves legally.

Several school districts dumped it. Skip Murphy had to confront his school board monthly for over a year and bring multiple lawsuits or the threat of them before Gilford backed away from theirs. But the policy is still in place, perhaps in your district, despite the NHSBA not publicly promoting it. This has not, however, dissuaded them from attempting to turn local schools into gender clinics filled with teachers and staff moonlighting as mental health experts.

In the NHSBAs October 2023 list of CRs – their legislative bucket list for the next State House Session, they continue to defend allowing porn in schools and ensuring challenges are handled locally so none will likely succeed. They do not want to see any state-level regulation of explicit material or policing of the material to ensure it is age-appropriate. Mind you, they don’t say that, but schools and libraries all over the State have age-inappropriate material accessible to minors who are too young to understand it and who might be harmed by it.

Here’s the relevant text.

 

5. NHSBA opposes any legislations that divests local school boards of original jurisdiction relative to complaints about local curriculum, instruction, and instructional resources such as books, library materials, and other instructional resources. Further, NHSBA opposes any legislation that subjects school district staff to civil lawsuits and sanctions relative to curriculum and instruction. (2023)

6. NHSBA affirms the qualifications of school district staff to research and select appropriate digital and printed material for schools. Literary and curricular collections should offer students information that provides a balance of cultural values. Further, literary collections should represent diverse points of view, provide a global perspective, stimulate essential thinking skills, and meet the interests, abilities, learning style.

 

Don’t tell the local districts what they can and cannot make available, and let them handle complaints when parents find their kids have access to explicit subject matter. As a fan of local control, I can see the appeal, but the NHSBA doesn’t care about students or parents or local or individual rights. Its job is to aid and abet school district power and its agenda is anything but balanced or values-based unless you mean progressive values.

And the districts aren’t listening to parents or students.

When confronted with problems like age-inappropriate material, the local government refuses to listen or even follow its anti-obscenity laws. The state government refuses to enforce the law as well. The people’s only recourse is their legislature. And the NHSBA isn’t opposed to that. Several of their resolutions ask the State to institute top-down controls for things like handing out Medicaid money and teacher credentialing. They don’t want local districts deciding how that works but don’t touch age-inappropriate material for minors.

Allow districts to stonewall Parents, embarrass them in public, and refuse to listen to concerns about material promoting adult-student sex, illegal drug and alcohol use, pedophilia, gay sex, bondage, and suicidal ideation, complete with graphic descriptions or drawings.

Without saying they want porn in schools, they’ve said it. Dear Legislature, do not protect children from groomers and perverts in local school districts. Let them police themselves. A policy they will stand behind until they don’t.

 

The post Dear Legislature, Please Let Groomers and Perverts in Local School Districts Police Themselves appeared first on Granite Grok.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella has joined 16 other state attorneys general in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit alleging that “Amazon is a monopolist” that engages in illegal anti-competitive behavior.

But a close read of FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan’s suit reveals a confused and ultimately unconvincing case that Amazon (a) is a monopoly player and (b) has harmed consumers.

If the FTC prevails in this legal case, it appears likely that consumers and small businesses, including the 4,500 small-to-medium-sized New Hampshire businesses that sell on Amazon and the many thousands of Granite Staters who shop online, will be harmed, not helped.

The lawsuit makes two primary claims. The first is that “Amazon is a monopolist.”

Therefore, the first test of the lawsuit’s merits is whether this statement is accurate.

Monopoly

In a free, competitive market, not all competitors succeed or survive. Innovators regularly surge past existing players to gain large market share, becoming temporarily dominant. Though this is a natural function of a competitive market, some see this simple economic fact as evidence that a particular market is not competitive, confusing competition with the actual number of competitors at a given point in time.

This misunderstanding is at the heart of the FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon.

“Monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it,” Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote in Capitalism and Freedom. Amazon clearly is not a monopolist under Friedman’s definition. What about the FTC’s definition?

The FTC’s website offers guidance outlining the legal steps required under U.S. antitrust law to prove that a company is a monopolist.

“As a first step, courts ask if the firm has ‘monopoly power’ in any market,” the FTC explains. “This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices.”

To be a monopolist, the FTC must prove that the company has (1) “monopoly power” in a market and (2) achieved or held onto its leading position in the market through “improper conduct.”

Even if a company has a large market share (typically over 50%), that market share has to be durable and has to preclude competitors from entering or, once entered, offering products and services at low prices.

The existence of competitively priced alternatives readily available to consumers in the market would be one way to demonstrate that a dominant player is not, in fact, a monopolist.

Amazon clearly does not exert monopoly control over the U.S. retail marketplace. In 2022, only 14.5% of all retail sales in the United States were online. The rest (85.5%) were done in brick-and-mortar stores.

Walmart, not Amazon, is the top American retailer, with a nearly 17% share of the retail market, followed by Amazon’s 14.28% share, CVS’s 8.96%, Costco’s 6.51%, and Home Depot’s 4.37%.

So, Amazon is hardly a retail monopoly.

What about online commerce? Amazon is the number one e-commerce company in the world. Does that make it a monopolist?

Amazon accounted for 37.8% of all online sales in the United States in 2022. E-commerce data company PYMNTS pegs its share of e-commerce spending in 2023 at 48%. That’s a lot, but a monopoly it does not make.

Walmart, Apple, eBay, and Target round out the top five online U.S. retailers. Despite Amazon accounting for the greatest share of e-commerce sales, Walmart.com, eBay.com, and AliExpress.com are the three most visited e-commerce websites. Etsy.com, Samsung.com, PlayStation.com, and BestBuy.com remain popular sites as well.

Though Amazon is the largest player (at the moment), it faces real competition. Before the FTC lawsuit was filed, Supermarket News reported this summer that Walmart’s share of online retail sales grew from 5.7% to 6.7%—a 17% increase—in the first quarter of the year. Amazon’s share grew from 43.7% to 47.9%—a 9% increase. Walmart’s comparable e-commerce sales grew by 27%. In the second quarter of this year, Walmart’s global e-commerce sales were up 24%.

If Amazon has achieved an illegal level of market dominance, one would expect its competitors to be losing revenue and market share. But its largest competitor, Walmart, posted $573 billion in revenue in 2022 versus Amazon’s $514 billion. And Walmart’s share of online retail commerce is growing, not shrinking. Its stock is up 13.5% this year. For an alleged victim of an illegally dominant monopoly player, it’s doing extremely well.

The FTC clearly understands this fundamental issue with its case, which is why the agency very carefully alleges that Amazon has a monopoly over “the online superstore market and the market for online marketplace services.”

As these are two innovations that Amazon pioneered, it’s to be expected that the company maintains a large lead in these areas. That in itself is not a violation of U.S. antitrust law. But defining Amazon’s market in such a novel, limited, and arbitrary fashion is the only way the FTC can possibly claim that Amazon holds monopoly power.

As Peter Jacobsen at the Foundation for Economic Education writes: “Notice how important these words are for the FTC. If you remove the word ‘online,’ then clearly, Amazon has no monopoly. There are lots of superstores. If you remove the word ‘superstore,’ again, there is no monopoly. Amazon does not have a monopoly on online stores.”

That’s precisely why the FTC asserts that “brick-and-mortar stores and online stores with a more limited selection are not reasonably interchangeable with online superstores for the same purposes and are thus properly excluded from the online superstore market.”

That’s a neat trick. The FTC deliberately excluded the markets where most American retail transactions occur so it could articulate the existence of a completely separate market ruled by Amazon. But the “online superstore” market is not a meaningfully distinct market. It’s just one part of a broader American retail market.

The FTC’s attempt to invent a distinct online superstore market is undermined by actual consumer behavior. PYMNTS reports that 28% of U.S. consumers have used a cell phone to assist with shopping while in a brick-and-mortar store, with 9% comparing the in-store price to prices offered by other merchants.

The FTC might consider online superstores a distinct and separate market, but consumers do not.

It’s not even clear precisely what an “online superstore” is. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “superstore” as “a very large store often offering a wide variety of merchandise for sale.” The FTC devotes several pages to attempting to define an “online superstore.” It concludes by claiming that online superstores are so attractive that consumers won’t even shop at other types of online stores, even if they offer lower prices.

“Even though such stores may price certain items comparably with online superstores, shoppers do not seriously consider those stores as reasonable alternatives to online superstores for a significant portion of their shopping needs.”

Again, real life contradicts the FTC’s claim. The Internet is full of online retail outlets that aren’t superstores and yet somehow manage to have customers. In 2022, the fastest-growing e-commerce site was not a superstore but a clothing store. In fact, 10 of the 15 fastest-growing e-commerce sites last year were not superstores. Consumers do not always prefer superstores, either online or in person.

“Online stores that sell unique, can’t-get-anywhere-else products will always have an edge over the mass-produced goods you find on Amazon,” e-commerce services provider Shopify notes, further undermining the FTC’s case.

The FTC supports its narrow market definition by arguing that “[o]nline superstores are distinct from, and not reasonably interchangeable with, brick-and-mortar stores. From start to finish, online superstores provide a vastly different shopping experience from physical stores.”

The fact that online superstores provide a different experience for shoppers is an inherent feature of a competitive retail market.

Anti-competitive practices

The FTC attempts to buttress its claims by asserting that Amazon has engaged in “anti-competitive” practices. It does this primarily by making a case against certain requirements and practices deployed by Amazon to govern its own Amazon Marketplace. However, the FTC doesn’t conclude its case with a convincing demonstration of consumer harm.

A study by Profitero of about 15,000 products sold online found that Amazon had the lowest online prices compared to 13 other major retailers in the United States. In fact, Amazon’s prices were, on average, 13% below rivals like Target and Walmart.

If Amazon offers consumers low prices, then what’s the FTC’s beef? The agency claims that Amazon leverages its Amazon Prime service to attract more consumers and to coerce sellers who choose to sell on Amazon Marketplace to use its fulfillment service, Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA). The agency deems this to be anti-competitive behavior.

But Amazon cannot compel anyone to use its marketplace. It offers incentives instead. For consumers, a wide variety of low-price products delivered quickly is the appeal. For sellers, access to a huge market of engaged customers is the appeal.

Amazon’s fulfillment service is valuable to sellers because it lets them outsource services such as warehousing and packaging to Amazon directly, saving time and resources on the back end.

FBA also offers access to Amazon’s Prime delivery service. Prime is valuable to sellers because it provides value to consumers.

The FTC claims that “the Prime subscription fee makes subscribers feel as though they must make the subscription fee worth it by making more purchases on Amazon.”

In other words, incentivizing subscribers to purchase more products on its platform, as opposed to shopping on competitors’ platforms, is anti-competitive and monopolistic. So, creating value for consumers is…anti-competitive?

Many retailers use similar reward systems. Big-box stores such as BJ’s and Costco have up-front membership fees similar to Amazon’s Prime fee. Coffee shops, fast-food restaurants, and many other retailers offer rewards points and programs to encourage customer loyalty. Rewarding repeat business with discounts or enhanced services is not unique to Amazon.

“Forcing sellers to use FBA to obtain Prime eligibility impedes competition and the growth of independent fulfillment providers,” the FTC claims.

The FTC is complaining that Amazon wants to control the packaging, warehousing, and delivery of products offered under its own branded loyalty program on its own website. But ask any restaurant owner about their experience with GrubHub or DoorDash, and it’s easy to see why Amazon would want to control this end of its business. It’s the only way to ensure quality.

Amazon can have a perfectly legitimate business reason for not allowing another company to offer fulfillment services under the Amazon Prime brand. The FTC pretends that the only possible outcome of such a policy is to reduce competition, when in fact, an obvious outcome is that Amazon can maintain a consistent, quality experience for both consumers and sellers.

And, again, Amazon doesn’t force sellers to use its fulfillment service. But if sellers want to take advantage of the Amazon Prime brand, as many do, then Amazon has every right to couple FBA with its Prime service, as they go hand-in-hand.

Offering Prime as part of FBA is a chief way in which Amazon distinguishes itself from other independent fulfillment providers. If these competitors’ survival depends on how well they compete with Amazon Prime, how is that anti-competitive behavior on Amazon’s part?

The FTC also argues that “Amazon raises sellers’ costs by forcing them to split their inventory to sell across multiple sales channels.” What the FTC means is that a retailer who wants to sell on Amazon Marketplace, as well as Walmart or eBay marketplaces simultaneously, must divide its inventory among separate warehouses and fulfillment services.

It neglects to mention that it’s the seller’s own choice to split inventory in order to access Amazon’s extensive consumer base while also selling through other channels. No one has to sell on Amazon Marketplace. It’s a choice, and that choice comes with tradeoffs. If retailers don’t think the tradeoff is worth it, they have many other options.

Contrary to the FTC’s assertions, Amazon doesn’t force sellers to use its fulfillment service or split their inventories. Rather, sellers do it because of the value added.

As the lawsuit makes clear, the FTC envisions an imaginary “perfect” market where every company that enters can survive and thrive by selling similar products for similar prices while not one competitor tries to gain a competitive edge over the others. But no such fantasy market exists. And if one did, its consumers would be harmed by the absence of aggressive competitors who seek dominant market share.

“Throughout the history of anti-trust prosecutions, there has been an unresolved confusion between what is detrimental to competition and what is detrimental to competitors,” economist Thomas Sowell writes in Basic Economics. “In the midst of this confusion, the question of what is beneficial to the consumer has often been lost sight of.”

Sowell’s point applies to the FTC’s lawsuit. There’s no disputing that Amazon is a giant corporation. But big doesn’t automatically equal bad. What’s important is identifying consumer harm. The FTC has failed to do this.

The agency fails to demonstrate that Amazon is a monopoly or that its alleged anti-competitive practices have, on net, harmed consumers or sellers.

The changes to Amazon’s practices that the FTC wants to see would likely raise prices and reduce service quality and consistency—all in order for the company to be deemed “competitive” in a made-up market that the agency invented.

It’s a disappointment that New Hampshire has joined a lawsuit with so many obvious flaws and with so many potential downsides for consumers.

 

Mitchell Scacchi | JBartlett

The post The Amazon Lawsuit New Hampshire Joined Is a Mess of Bad Economics appeared first on Granite Grok.

Casualties are sometimes preventable. There are casualties of war. Some wars may be just, but some should be avoided. We lost 59,000 of our sons and daughters in Vietnam and 50,000 in Korea. You can label these conflicts. We lost 620,000 of our own in the Civil War.

We have casualties because we do not react to situations. Our open Southern Border is causing many casualties of various kinds. We see people who die in their efforts to get to America. We have women who are raped or killed during their trek. We have lost thousands of children to the sex trade or who find themselves on farms or in factories as slave labor. We’ve lost 85,000 alien children in the last two years. Is anyone marching to stop these senseless losses of life? No.

We are losing 100,000 Americans to an illegal drug from China and Mexico that comes to our land through a wide open door that was once our Southern Border. Young men and women, 18-45 years old, in the prime of their lives, are killed yearly by a white powder that should never be on American soil. There has been enough Fentanyl confiscated from illegal aliens to kill every man, woman, and child in America. That is what we have stopped. How much has gotten through to kill Americans?

Where are the protestors against Fentanyl? Where are the brilliant college students holding signs to close the Border? Where are the buses bringing people to Washington to demand Biden stop the genocide caused by his open Border? You won’t find anyone because they are organized to march against Israel and for the terrorist group Hamas.

Israel is not a perfect country. There is no perfect country on earth, but Israel is not committing genocide on any country or group. The people of Israel know genocide. They are the descendants of the holocaust that destroyed 6 million Jews at the hands of Hitler. They want to live and prosper on the small piece of land that the world designated for them after World War II, but as they have for centuries, some groups still want the Jews obliterated. Being chosen by God has made the Jews targets for all time.

Israel is our best ally in the Middle East, but in this country, thousands march and demonstrate in support of Hamas and the eradication of the Jews who call Israel home. These ignorant demonstrators are victims of an education system that has taught and a media that has supported antisemitism. As a culture, we denounce racism, yet we do not shout down these protestors who are promoting antisemitism, which is the oldest form of racism on earth.

The Democrat Party claims to be for the little people and Israel, but its actions say otherwise. Joe Biden and the Democrats destroyed our Border. They promote a borderless world. They see nothing wrong with seven million illegals, drugs, and crime coming into our country in three years. They are encouraging these demonstrations and supporting the education system feeding them. They are destroying the middle class and promoting those who want to destroy Israel. The Democrat Party is quick to label their adversaries threats to Democracy or existential threats to humanity, but should they look in a mirror, they will see the real danger.

The irony is these protests will swell. The conflict in Israel and Gaza will not end quickly. The demonstrations supported by the Democrat Party are the biggest threat to that party. The leadership vacuum that is the Democrat Party may be its destruction. This political suicide may be good for the future of our country and Israel. By the way, Joe Biden ran as the healer who would bring America back together. How is he doing with that? In three years, we have never been more divided. Joe Biden is a failure and has failed America. He must go.

The post Night Cap: Political Suicide and the Future of Our Country appeared first on Granite Grok.

Novel scientific processes are being developed to reduce methane production by cows, including feeding milk cows the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) as an “enteric inhibitor,” marketed under the brand name BovaerⓇ in Europe and pending approval for cows in the U.S. Other experimental additives include red seaweed (being fed to cows for Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream).

BovaerⓇ is touted as reducing methane emissions from dairy cows by as much as 30%, but its long-term impacts on human health are unclear. Will people drink milk from chemical-dosed cows to save the planet from methane?

This methane-reducing chemical was approved for use in Europe by the European Food Safety Authority’s Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP).  FEEDAP concluded that 3-NOP was safe for cows even though “the genotoxicity potential of 3-NOP cannot be ruled out.”  Though rats were used to assess impacts on humans, the panel dismissed evidence of potential impact on male reproductivity:

The FEEDAP Panel noted that the severe effects seen on testes and epididymides, affecting spermatogenesis, were observed in rats only.… [T]he testicular toxicity induced by administration of 3-NOP is rat specific. The FEEDAP Panel agreed with this conclusion.… [T]he use of Bovaer® 10 in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed was of no concern for consumer safety and for the environment.

There have been numerous food additives approved for human consumption for which there was no concern for human safety, and subsequently proved to be unhealthy.  High-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fat saturate the American food supply with no apparent concern for human safety.  Glyphosate has been banned in many parts of the world, but is hailed as harmless by the U.S.’s EPA and FDA.

Adding chemicals that are eye and skin irritants (like 3-NOP) to cow feed, to make human food, to reduce methane production seems sketchy: corporations generally only develop additives that bolster profits.  The profit pitch may be that consumers will buy the environmentally friendly reduced-methane milk.  But findings like this from FEEDAP may offer cause to pause:

The FEEDAP Panel notes that the genotoxicity of 3-NOP cannot be ruled out and that pre-neoplastic lesions and tumours [sic] observed in the 2-year carcinogenicity study with 3-NOP are biologically relevant. However, the consumer is not exposed to 3-NOP. Therefore, the above findings are not considered relevant for the safety for the consumer.

Consumers didn’t like bovine growth hormone (bovine somatotropin) in their milk.  This was developed in the 1970s to increase milk production, using an artificial hormone developed with recombinant DNA technology: rBGH.  Many countries have banned the drug, but it is still used in U.S. milk supplies with no labeling requirement.  Proponents claim it will help the climate by increasing productivity, thereby permitting a herd reduction of some 157,000 animals and their associated “carbon footprint.”

American consumers also objected to “pink slime,” a processed meat by-product paste used as a food additive and filler called “lean finely textured beef,” or LFTB. Objections arose to the use of beef trimmings treated with ammonia or citric acid.  Pink slime is banned in the European Union, Canada, and several other nations.  In the U.S., the product was profitable, so the government overrode consumer safety concerns: it is now found, unlabeled, in American grocery stores since the USDA’s Orwellian-named “Food Safety and Inspection Service” reclassified the substance as “ground beef.”

Hormones and antibiotics are also used in U.S. beef production, to increase growth rates and leaner finished animals.  These include synthetic hormones, some of which adversely impact animal health.  Consumer concerns may be justified, given the increasing human illness being caused by damage to the gut. One study observed the lack of study of this potential harm:

Small amounts of antibiotics added to feedstuff present growth promotion effects via the prevention of infectious diseases at doses lower than therapeutic dose. The induction of antimicrobial resistant bacteria and the disruption of normal human intestinal flora are major concerns in terms of human health impact.… [B]efore deciding on any risk management options, risk assessments of antimicrobial resistance require large-scale evidence regarding the relationship between antimicrobial use in food-producing animals and the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in human pathogens.

There is a pattern at work though—those large-scale studies are never done. Consumers are told to just trust the scientific experts and the corporate profiteers.  PFAS have seeped into U.S. drinking water for 80 years, and the EPA only established “safe levels” of these forever chemicals in 2023.  Synthetic meat has been approved for production with little study of its potential harms: people don’t want to eat the stuff despite claims of climate salvation.

Next thing you know, the government will work with private business entities to compel humans to take an experimental vaccine, with inadequate study, while providing unlimited protection from liability for any harms caused.  With revolving-door regulatory oversight for corporate profit now the obvious norm in America, who on earth would drink milk tainted with chemicals that synthetically alter how cows digest grass?

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

 

The post Milking Cows for Methane appeared first on Granite Grok.

Elon Musk is launching the latest Artificial intelligence to grace the interwebs. Why would we need another one, you might ask. Well, according to Musk, it’s not like those other AIs, which most users have admitted can tend to be a bot too woke.

And he named it Grok.

 

Details about Grok remain scarce, yet indications are that the wealthiest man in the world is initiating a ‘counter LLM’ movement that will challenge the already mass-available LLMs on the market, such as ChatGPT, which is super ‘woke’ and has Soviet-style censorship.

In April, Musk sat down with Tucker Carlson in an interview and discussed the need to develop his own LLM called TruthGPT, a “maximum truth-seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of the universe.”

Zero Hedge suggests this is evidence of the parallel economy gaining momentum. I won’t disagree, but while there are things online that The State cannot limit or control if we do not get off the current arc of tyranny, the parallel economy will be the underground economy.

It doesn’t take too many 5 AM police raids by federal officers to change how your country works. Still, for the moment, the ability of guys like Elon Muck to create alternatives keeps the censorship agenda from monopolizing information. And Musk’s AI is alleged to have a sense of humor.

 

xAI’s Grok system is designed to have a little humor in its responses pic.twitter.com/WqXxlwI6ef

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 4, 2023

 

 

He’s calling it Grok, and it can be snarky.

What’s not to like about that?

The post Elon Musk Names ‘Xs’ New Artificial Intelligence (AI) Engine … Grok! appeared first on Granite Grok.

For years, non-residents have voted in New Hampshire by claiming they lived here and singing an affidavit with no teeth. They were rarely investigated or followed up, and the votes tipped elections all across the state. The Legislature added teeth to the law last year, and the lawsuits followed.

 

Several individual voter and advocacy groups filed lawsuits last year, days after Republican Gov. Chris Sununu signed the bill into law. They argued that it violates the right to privacy the state added to its constitution in 2018 because it would diminish the secrecy of ballots and tie voters’ names to the candidates for whom they voted. But a judge recently granted a request from the secretary of state and attorney general to dismiss the cases.

SB418 can prevent some of the helicopter voting we experience from nearby states, but it does not address the issue of out-of-state students voting in our elections. SB418 allows any valid student ID as proof of residency. It’s not much of an improvement, but the Republicans got it passed and into law, and it does meet the criteria of incrementalism. And it stood up to a court challenge on – get this, lack of standing.

 

Related: New NH Law: “Voters” Without Proper ID Need to Provide Proof within 7 Days or Their Ballots Get Tossed

 

In an order made public Friday, Merrimack County Judge Charles Temple agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law.

The individual plaintiffs already are registered to vote and thus can’t argue the changes will harm them, he said. And they don’t have standing as taxpayers objecting to the expenditure of public funds, he said, because the law doesn’t appropriate money.

They would need an out-of-state resident to file, which sounds ridiculous because it is. How do you claim to have standing as a non-resident voter who might be voting in New Hampshire in a future election if they happen to move here?

By my reckoning, that’s proof enough to justify the law, and while we’ll take the win, I doubt this is over. Someone will find a way to come at this because there is no way they want this on the books.

 

The post NH’s New Affidavit Voting Law Survives Court Challenge appeared first on Granite Grok.

We have not won a war since World War II, and the reason is politicians. People in office, especially those who never served like Joe Biden, should do what is necessary to keep the world safe and conflict-free.

Still, when there is a breakdown and peace is broken, politicians should get out of the way and let the military minds do what they do best – fight to win. After the Afghanistan debacle, which is still fresh in everyone’s mind, this administration has a lot of guts to tell Israel what it needs to do to reconcile the horrific assault by Hamas terrorists on October 7. This effort is especially true since we have done nothing to retaliate against Hamas for the Americans killed or taken hostage during the day of terror or against any of the Iranian puppets that have attacked our military positions thirty times in the last month.

Biden and his team had been pro-Israel for the first few weeks of the recent conflict, but their message has blurred this past week. First, they started pushing for a Humanitarian Pause in the fighting to allow supplies to reach civilians in Gaza and to allow anyone who wants to leave Gaza to exit safely. Biden has tried daily to differentiate between a pause and a cease-fire but to no avail. Nobody is buying his explanation.

Some think Biden is acquiescing to the Radical Left Wing of the Party that has been pro-Hamas and urging a cease-fire. The Secretary of State has been to Israel twice to sell the idea, but as often happens with Blinken, he has come. up empty, and for good reason. A pause or cease-fire would be suicide for Israeli troops in Gaza. They may stop fighting, but Hamas will never. They will shoot Israelis like fish in a pond. Israel is smart enough to know a cease-fire is not going to happen until Hamas is destroyed and the hostages are freed.

Israel is fully capable of destroying Hamas to the South and fending off Hezbollah in Lebanon to the North. They do not need advice from the United States but military equipment, especially missiles for the Iron Dome intercept system. This system has been taxed for four weeks with a seemingly endless number of incoming rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza. However, Biden and Blinken are playing a political game. They are seeing the pro-Hamas and Palestinian support around the world and on major college campuses around America.

He is feeling the pressure of falling approval numbers and seeing his chance of re-election slipping away. Another example of proof of politics influencing the Biden Camp is the post on X by Kamala Harris this week. When the free world is looking for America to support Israel unconditionally, our Vice President launches a new program to fight against anti-Islam sentiment. When the world is on fire with anti-Semitic rhetoric, the Biden Administration goes to war against anti-Islam hate speech. Can you be more on the wrong page? Why should we expect less from a President who has been on the wrong side of foreign policy for fifty years?

 

The post We Have Not Won a War Since World War II appeared first on Granite Grok.