Replace the Electoral College with Popular Plus Half County

If the Dems writhe in agony over the Electoral College, just wait until they get a load of what I just proposed to my Congressional Representative for consideration by our predominantly Republican Congress!
 
Instead of an electoral college, I propose we shift to a mix of the popular vote combined with county representation, with each county having a proportionate share, not of the popular vote, but of the population of American Citizens.
 
Here’s how this would work:
 
There are 3,007 counties in the U.S. The United States is estimated to have a population of 327,589,916 as of April 23, 2018, making it the third most populous country in the world (1). That’s 108,942 votes per county, so half that comes to 54,471 votes.
 
In addition to however many popular votes are given directly to the candidates, whatever candidate a county’s popular votes favor would also receive an additional 54,471 votes.
 
I call it Popular plus Half County, but you can call it Half-Baked, if you’d like.
 
The primary benefit is that it would greatly encourage people to get out and vote in order to minimize the effect of the county votes.
 
The secondary benefit is that like the Electoral College, it would wrest control of our nation from the largely homogeneous but largely ignorant people congregating in mega-cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, people who usually decide issues based on what they can get out of it instead of what’s good for the nation as a whole. Only more so. In fact, it would largely undermine their vote. The Demoncrap vote. The liberal vote. The ignorant vote.
 
It’s actually a litmus test. You see, if a Democrat or liberal reads this, their heads have probably exploded by now. If they haven’t, and they’ve read this far, then perhaps there’s hope for them, yet.
 
(1) “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 – 2016 Population Estimates”. U.S. Census Bureau.

Assault Rifle vs Assault Weapon vs Semi-Automatic Firearm

Despite years of intensive effort on the part of firearms experts to train mainstream media on even the most basic firearms terminology, they still screw it up.  Constantly.  Just this morning, for example, The Chicago Tribune ran headlines which read:

Texas shooting suspect’s choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles

“Assault rifles?”  Seriously?  I wasn’t aware there was any “debate over assault rifles.”  In fact, there’s no such debate because only two assault rifles have ever been used in a mass shooting in the U.S., both of which occurred last century.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.  Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.  “Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986” (Source).  This includes assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns.

Neither the AR-15 nor any of its many variants, is an “assault rifle.”

I think what the idiots at the Chicago Tribune were trying to say is, “assault weapon.”  The problem with that term, however, is that it’s not even real.  It’s a made-up term, lacking any concrete definition that isn’t already covered by widely-used industry-standard definitions.  In fact, the individual who made it up was trying to get around the fact that he could not knowing call the Colt AR-15 an “assault rifle” because the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle at all.  It’s a semi-automatic rifle, period.

Semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles.”  They’re certainly not “assault weapons,” as that term holds no standing whatsoever in the industry.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle and friendly-looking semi-automatic rifle.  Both are just semi-automatic rifles.  The idea of banning so-called “assault weapons” is ludicrous as NO SUCH FIREARM EXISTS.

 

On LLCs and Self-Insuring

The question was:  “Can you LLC yourself as an insurance company then only insure yourself?”

DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, below:

While you can, you’d not only have to go through state licensing requirements (expensive!), but you’d also have to carry assets to back up your insurance limits. And pay taxes on net income.

Definitely go with an LLC. By definition, an LLC — Limited Liability Company — A limited liability company (LLC) is the United States-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that combines the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation.[1][2] An LLC is not a corporation in and of itself; it is a legal form of a company that provides limited liability to its owners in many jurisdictions. LLCs are well-known for the flexibility that they provide to business owners; depending on the situation, an LLC may elect to use corporate tax rules instead of being treated as a partnership.

The benefit is that unlike a sole proprietorship or partnership, where your own and your partner’s assets are on the line in case of a civil suit, with an LLC, provided you as the owner/operator/principal, or employee have done your due diligence to operate within the law, a civil lawsuit is limited to going after the assets of the company, and not yours, personally.

There’s nothing wrong with an LLC self-insuring. Just raise your deductibles to a sizeable fraction (a third? a fifth?) of your total assets.
That way, you’re carrying a part of those assets yourself, without paying insurance for them at all, which will greatly lower your premiums.

The part of insurance that remains is your safety net to keep you from being completely wiped out in case of catastrophe.

I have rich friends who typically carry either very high deductibles ($10k to $50k) on collision and liability, but they still carry insurance on the rest, and for good reason: The insurance company’s lawyers can go to bat for them if they need it.

Totally self-insuring isn’t recommended as you really don’t want to have to hire a lawyer for tens of thousands of dollars to defend you in a claim, and you really don’t want to be your own lawyer!

DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, above.

Good luck

Piers Morgan’s Blitheringly Idiotic Gun Ban Drive

Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms.  His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100).  Sounds terrific, right?  Let’s ban all firearms now, right?

How Piers Morgan LIES
(click for full-size)

Well, not so fast.  You see, Piers Morgan lies.  He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.”  He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime.  Speaking of which…

Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms.  Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.

Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.

THE QUESTION:  Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall?  A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States.  Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?

To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).

Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1:  Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016.  This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

To be continued…

Bill Cosby was LYNCHED by Public Opinion and Cognitive Bias

Today’s Headlines:  “Bill Cosby’s wife says Andrea Constand lied.”
Camille Olivia Cosby (née Hanks; born March 20, 1944) is an American television producer, author and philanthropist.
 
Putting aside for the moment that she’s the wife of comedian Bill Cosby,  she’s also quite an accomplished lady in her own right, and while acknowledging the fact that he cheated on her, she has repeatedly and vehemently denied he’s any sort of rapist: “The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man… and a wonderful husband, father and friend.”
 
I agree with her.
 
“In the statement posted to her husband’s official social media accounts, Camille Cosby said that Andrea Constand’s testimony during the trial “was unsupported by any evidence and riddled with innumerable, dishonest contradictions.” “
 
I agree with that, as well, along with her call for a “criminal investigation of the Montgomery County District attorney, who she said tried her husband solely for career advancement.”
 
It is COMMON for DA’s to press on while knowing an individual is innocent, and sometimes they win with the full knowledge that they just sent an innocent person to jail. That’s so beyond the normal of most people that we can’t even believe it’s true, but it is, and two assistant DA’s I know have confirmed it, one without any remorse and the other while stating he was switching to defense law.
 
When I asked him, “Why?” he said, “sadly, DA’s are rewarded by career advancement mostly on the basis of convictions and NOT the accuracy of those convictions.”
 
Now it makes sense: They’re in it for the money.
 
This trial should never have gone forth as there was never anything to try. One person writing a few lines in a book is what resulted in dozens magically appearing out of nowhere as long as 50 — FIFTY — years after the alleged event took place. Even the most recent event was alleged to have taken place more than a DECADE before the individual ever bothered mentioning it to ANYONE, much less stepping forward.
 
Why? Because Bill Cosby is worth well over $100 Million. Some reports put that as high as $400 Million. Regardless of any criminal conviction, a successful civil lawsuit would set the accusers up for life, but with a criminal conviction, the outcome of a civil lawsuit is guaranteed. Whether she even goes after Cosby in a civil suit is immaterial: The accuser has already received book offers galore worth millions.
 
Again, FOLLOW THE MONEY. The Bible says the love of money is the root of many evils, and I don’t see ANYTHING virtuous or righteous in the lives of Cosby’s accusers. All I see are clear sins that point to a love of money.
 
As to all of you who jumped on the anti-Cosby bandwagon, congratulations — you allowed emotion, fear, and prejudice to carry you away. Perhaps you never got over OJ’s acquittal years ago.  Perhaps you can’t separate this “Bill” from the former president who kept sticking his dick in a certain White House intern.  I’m sure these were factors in the jury’s — er, the SECOND jury’s — decision. When convicting a person for a capital or other infamous crime, I am of the opinion that a hung jury should never be considered a “mistrial,” but rather, a failure to convict. That is, after all, why Denver remains a no open carry locale despite the fact that all of Colorado is an open carry state. They had a hung jury.
 

This entire debacle is not justice. It’s a TRAVESTY of justice, and those of you who self-righteously jumped on that bandwagon nodding your bobble-heads after the ill-gotten conviction should be ASHAMED of yourselves.  Camille says you’re no better than lynch mobs, and I agree with her on this point, too.

If you think you know her husband better than she she does after 50 years of living with him?  If so, you’re a SPECIAL kind of stupid.

Friday the 13th – US UK and France Bombed Assyria

In deference to all Demoncraps, most of who will no doubt attempt to either spin things out of control or claim certain events never happened, I’ve included the following links from Friday, April 13, 2018, the first set of which are solely from CNN:

US, France, and UK strike Syria’s chemical weapons program

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

France’s president says a red line had been crossed after chemical weapon attack

A look at the missile used in the strikes

This photo shows the moment France’s president ordered the strike

McCain applauds Trump’s decision — but calls for a comprehensive strategy

Mattis:  Right now, tonight’s strike is “a one-time shot”

Schumer warns Trump administration to “be careful” to avoid a greater war in Syria

At least one US Navy warship based in Red Sea was used in strike

Russian ambassador to US warns of “consequences” after strikes on Syria

Mattis:  US used “double” amount of weapons in strike

The legal authority Trump is using to order these strikes

US “specifically identified” targets to avoid Russian forces

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

Fox News

Trump announces US military strikes in Syria

“To Iran and to Russia I ask, what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children,” Trump said.

“The nations of the world can be judged by the friends that they keep,” he continued. “Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or continue with civilized nations.”

The US actions came as part of an allied front against heinous actions taken against innocent women and children:

French President Emmanuel Macron said the operation was targeting the “clandestine chemical arsenal” in Syria.

British Prime Minister Theresa May also issued a statement: “This evening I have authorized British armed forces to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use,” May said.

The Ignorant Folly of Sending the National Guard to the Border

I vehemently disagree with Michael Savage’s April 7, 2018 article, “ACLU SIDES WITH DRUG SMUGGLERS:  TROOPS DO NOT BELONG AT BORDER.”
It’s not that I agree with the ACLU.  I don’t.  They’re idiots.  Specifically, they claim that “Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civilized society.”
Under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”  Furthermore, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes, specifically states the National Guard, along with the Naval Militia, are one of the two classes of the Constitutionally and federally recognized militia mentioned under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15.
That’s why the ACLU are idiots.  Apparently, they can’t read.  At the very least, they can’t seem to read the U.S. Constitution and federal law without totally screwing it up.  It’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”  The ACLU doesn’t understand that “the fundamental norms of a civilized society” require that society to maintain good order and discipline i.e. law and order while simultaneously protecting the life, limb, and property of people, both individually and collectively.
But Michael Savage is also an idiot, for two reason.  First, he confuses illegal aliens crossing our border with drugs and weapons with an invasion.  Second, he is apparently unaware of the U.S. Border Patrol’s actual mission.
INVASION
The Cambridge Dictonary, arguable one of the top three dictionaries of the English language, defines “invasion” three ways:
 – an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country
 – an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way
 – an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way
That matches the definitions I learned in history in both high school and college, as well as studies as a U.S. military officers.
There’s also this to consider:  “The priority mission of the U.S. Border Patrol is preventing terrorists and terrorists weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States” (Source: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview).
 
Furthermore, “While the Border Patrol has changed dramatically since its inception in 1924, its primary mission remains unchanged: to detect and prevent he illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work – facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband).
 
Finally, the U.S. Border Patrol contains a Special Operations Group (SOG) with three units:
– Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC): The mission of BORTAC is “to respond to terrorist threats of all types anywhere in the world in order to protect our nation’s homeland.”
– Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)
– Mobile Response Team (MRT)
 
Looks to me like the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job.
Don’t get me wrong: I despite the ACLU. But the question of whether or not sending National Guard troops to the border is the right move, or whether or not it’s even legal, has nothing to do with the ACLU.
 
It has to do with the fact that our nation already has a civilian law enforcement on ground to do precisely the job that needs to be done. The U.S. Border Patrol is specifically trained to do the job they’re doing and they do it very well.
 
If those units aren’t enough due to a surge in the threat, then INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS as THEY ARE IDEALLY SUITED FOR THE JOB.
 
TRAINING: All Border Patrol agents spend a minimum of 13 weeks at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy for a total of 21 weeks. Border Patrol Agent Trainees are instructed in courses including; criminal law, nationality law, and administrative immigration law, police sciences, self-defense and arrest techniques, firearms training with pistol, shotgun and rifle, police vehicle driving, and other Border Patrol / federal law enforcement subjects.
 
Once they arrive back at their duty station, Trainees then must graduate from the Field Training Officer (FTO) program, an on-the-job training program, which varies in length from a minimum of 12 weeks to a maximum of over 16 weeks long, depending on the practical demands of the duty station and local management. They must also successfully complete the Post Academy Training Program, an extension of the Border Patrol Academy where Trainees complete additional classroom-based training over the course of their first nine months back at their duty station.
 
Does this mean the National Guard should never be used along our borders?  Of course not!  As the Constitution specifically states, it’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
What’s happening along the southern border of the United States, however, is most certainly not an invasion.  It might seem like it to some people, but it utterly fails to meet that definition.
According to Wikipedia, “An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”
You might say, “But it’s been done before!”  Indeed it has:  “President George W. Bush sent 6,000 troops to the border. President Barack Obama sent 1,200. The deployments cost a total of more than $1.3 billion.”
 
Wow. That’s $722,222 for each troop, and just because “everyone’s doing it” doesn’t make it legal.
 
So…  Since it’s clearly not legal, and the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job, why not INSTEAD increase the U.S. Border Patrol’s budget and open wide their six-month training pipeline? That way, at the end of all this you’d pay less than a THIRD of that cost while simultaneously having another trained U.S. Border Patrol agent at the read.
 
Like I said earlier, the National Guard is expensive!