Run Your Own Country - "...of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Life!

A leading OBGYN confirms that an unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being from the moment of conception.

The only objective, accurate counter for those who continue to promote abortion is, “You support abortion only due to your own sin, that has hardened your heart, else you would know in your heart that It’s murder and those support it are going to Hell.” Consider:

1. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man from the moment of conception. God spoke to Mary about it even before she became pregnant, and followed that up with many miraculous signs and wonders witnessed by thousands.

2. Millions of babies are aborted, even though millions of parents who can’t bear children would love a baby. Meanwhile, liberals allow millions of undocumented illegals into our country suck hundreds of billions of dollars our of our tax coffers, many times more than the full medical care and adoption costs of delivering those babies into the loving arms of new parents.

3. A baby is not his or her mother’s tissue to do with as she wants. It’s not his or her father’s tissue, either, nor is it even their joint tissue. A baby’s DNA is uniquely their own. They are their own unique person, made and loved by God. “Insofar as you do unto the least of these,” said Jesus, and it was both an encouragement towards doing good towards children as well as a warning against doing wrong.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 6:23

What do YOU support? Sin and death? Or LIFE???

Trump’s Wall – True Cost and Economic Analysis

Construction on Hadrian’s wall began in 122 A.D. and was largely completed in six years. The wall was 73 miles long, roughly 10 feet wide and 16 to 20 feet high. Ditches, berms and forts rounded out the wall’s construction, while some 80 small forts known as milecastles, as well as 158 turrets, housed the Roman garrisons which supplied troops to man the wall.

One-thousand, eight-hundred and ninety-six years later, we’ve seen the building of many other, far larger walls, including the Great Wall of China, with is 13,171 miles long, far, far longer than our own southern border, upwards of 30 feet wide and 16 to 26 feet in height. But it was built over 2,089 years!

The wall proposed by President Trump is far more modest. Rather than bore you with details here, I’ll simply refer you to a New York Times article which states the DHS said the wall could cost $21.6 billion, but Senate Democrats claimed the wall would cost $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain.

Fine, Dems. Let’s run with your numbers. That comes to $71.5 billion for the first 10 years, total, and $150 million per year thereafter. That’s $22 per person per year the first decade, followed by a whopping nickel ($0.05) per person per year thereafter.

But wait… Isn’t the wall supposed to be paying for itself? Well, let’s run those numbers, too!

Watchdog: $116 billion

Politifact: $43 billion

AZ Central: $15.6 billion

Well, that’s a rather wide spread, isn’t it! Let’s just cut to the chase and average these three figures: $58.2 Billion

Even with the Democrats rather inflated (by three times) cost of the wall, that’s still a payback period of just over 1 year. 1.23 years, to be precise. This means the wall is paying for itself each and every 1.23 years it’s in existence.

People, it doesn’t GET any better than this.

BUILD THAT WALL!!!

Constitutionally Criminal Ban on Bump Stocks

I am not a fan of bump stocks. I think they’re stupid. They significantly decrease accuracy while wasting ammunition. Will a rubber band actually work in lieu of a bump stock? Who knows? I’m neither inclined nor equipped to find out. HOWEVER, it remains the God-given, Constitutionally-protected RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

IN FACT, the term “arms” is short for “armaments,” which includes, but is not limited to firearms. I also includes any and all adjuncts, such as ammunition, scopes, slings, cases, magazines and yes, bump stocks, not to mention, rocks, knives, hatchets, axes, slings, arrows, spears… My, my! Both state and federal legislatures, courts, and executives have been busy trampling our Constitution, haven’t they?

In the meantime, the Depart of Justice Docket No. 2018R-22F; AG Order No. RIN 1140-AA52, “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” clearly violates Constitutional law. As another pro-2A netizen noted just hours ago, “That understanding of the law contradicts the plain language of the NFA, the position repeatedly taken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) during the Obama administration, and the interpretation endorsed by both supporters and opponents of a legislative ban.”

In fact, as the netizen observes, “Trump’s order will do nothing to increase the safety of the American people.” Indeed, a study presented at the American College of Surgeon’s 104th Annual Clinical Congress in October, 2018, specifically noted there’s “no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. ” Not only will the bump stock ban have absolutely zero effect on the rates of murder and other violent crime, but it continues to steepen the “it’s for the public good” argument i.e. slippery slope through which many of our Constitutional rights have been eroded, to our detriment, not because such actions actually have any effect, but because some blithering idiot in government merely thinks they’ll have an effect. They’re wrong. Their only effect is the continued erosion of our Constitutional rights.

In fact, restricting magazine sizes is also a Constitutionally unlawful infringement. Banning bump stocks may appear to be a politically expedient thing to do, but it remains a Constitutionally unlawful infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms aka armaments. “What does an honest, law-abiding citizen want with a machine gun?” I dunno, but what does a trio of dishonest, law-breaking thugs want with bump stocks? If you think they’re going to turn in their bump stocks, you’re smoking dope.

I don’t care what the courts say. My oath of office isn’t to the courts. It’s to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and ANYONE attempting to undermine, skirt, or willfully violate our rights under the Constitution of the United States is, by definition, an “enemy” of the United States of America as well as each and every Citizen of the United States, especially those of us who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If a judge, even a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, violates the Constitution, I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against their actions, primarily by exercising my First Amendment “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and make no mistake about it, this “final rule” by the Department of Justice is most certain a grievance against the people of the United States of America.

Appearances are deceiving. Just because something “seems” right or like the right thing to do doesn’t make it so, even if 93% of Americans agree. Ours is not a democracy. “It’s a Republic, Ma’am — if you can keep it.” – Benjamin Franklin, as reflected in Article. IV. Section. 4. of the Constitution for the United States of America: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

When you arbitrarily infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you are FAILING in your DUTY to guarantee We the People a Republican form of government. In fact, what you are doing, Mr. President, is playing right into the hands of the Democrats, who are cackling in wicked glee over how they just manipulated Acting Attorney General Whitiker into signing this Constitutionally egregious “final rule.” For all our sakes, for the sake of the entire country, let us hope and pray you un-finalize it, and quickly.

Prelude to an ABSOLUTELY BULLETPROOF Voting System

It’s not for lack of understanding. We KNOW how to make an ABSOLUTELY BULLETPROOF voting system that would allow people their option of heading to the polls, kiosks, voting by mail, or voting online, complete with full but very economical multi-part paper trails, built-in automated and advanced fraud detection, and multi-level auditing.

The problem isn’t lack of know-how. We’ve had this licked for decades, and for electronic versions, including online, for more than a decade.

The problem rests with the fact that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which landing the explorers on Mars is full of experts who know how to land explorers on Mars whereas state legislatures and members of Congress are NOT full of voting systems experts, but instead, are full of lawyers.

Lawyers are good at writing laws. They’re terrible at assessing the various designs of voting systems, much less designing them. They CAN’T design them. Their brains just don’t work that way.

But mine does, as do the brains of many other systems analysts, database developers, and security systems specialists.

The question isn’t whether or not we can build a a voting system the Dems can’t hack. The question is whether or not we will ever be allowed to do so.

A Snapshot of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been all over the news in recent months, paraded around by mudstream media like a freshly cooked side of beef.

Many people, however, observe that her comments reveal she has a very loose grasp on reality. For example:

– She compares the caravan of migrants amassing at our southern border to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany.

Such a comparison is horribly disrespectful of the Jewish people.

– She compares her election victory to Moon landing

That’s like comparing a Toyota Prius to a $54 million yacht. Let’s examine why:

EFFORT: When you think of Apollo 11, the first thing that probably comes to mind is Neil Armstrong’s fateful first words from the Moon: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” It’s important to remember, though, that Apollo 11’s Moon landing was the culmination of DECADES of work by hundreds of thousands of people working across dozens of science, technology, and engineering disciplines.

COST: Back in 1973, the total cost of the Apollo program reported to Congress was $25.4 billion. By far the most expensive parts of the mission were the Apollo spacecraft (the Command Modules, the Lunar Modules) and the monstrous Saturn V launch vehicles. A single Saturn V launch cost up to

$375 million in 1969 — or, in today’s money, A FEW BILLION DOLLARS ($2.61 billion, to be exact).

That’s two thousand times more than the $1.8 million spent on Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign. That’s like claiming you own a $54 Million yacht in in reality, all you own is a $27,000 Prius.

AOC’s delusions of grandeur, hyper-inflated sense of self-worth, and inability to place things within their proper context render her wholly unsuitable for service in Congress. Despite having studied economics in school, she has absolutely zero sense for figures, no concept of finances, budgeting, or sense of proportion. Finally, her complete and utterly lack of understanding with respect to the inherent nature of socialism render her utterly incompatible with the Constitution of the United States of America and the principles upon which this nation was founded and absolutely required to keep our nation running smoothly.

Now, let’s see if she’s a liar. If she takes her Congressional Oath of Office in our Republic yet continues to claim she supports socialism, she’s a liar. Can she REALLY…

Founding Documents — We The People – US Constitution

“…support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic?” Or is she more likely to be the domestic enemy trying to undermine our Constitution in order to advance her wacko socialist beliefs that stand in utter opposition to our Constitutional principles?

The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Once again, ignorant Democrats have done a grave disservice to the people of the United States of America.

Securing America’s Voting While Greatly Reducing Costs

Yes, it CAN be done. HERE’S HOW:

1. At the DMV, after presenting multiple credentials for both your identity and your residence, you select a 6-digit PIN. That’s a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of randomly guessing it.

2. Prior to the election, you’re mailed a unique (non-repeating) security-sealed seven-digit alphanumeric access code containing lowercase, uppercase, and numbers. Each character has 62 possible combinations, and seven characters have 3,521,614,606,208 (3.5 trillion) possible combinations. Here’s an example: 6umulRc

3. Within 1 month of election day, a person logs onto their state’s thoroughly-protected (TLS 1.3 and a bunch of other back-end and router stuff) online voting website by typing in the following information:

First Name

Middle Initial

Last Name

Highly Secure (TLS 1.3 and possibly TLS Channel ID) pop-up windows ask you first for your access code, and then, in separate pop-up windows, for your PIN, as well as random questions to which you should know the answer, including picking your year, make, and model of car, your drivers license number, possibly your birthday, height, or eye color as listed on your drivers license from among a list of perhaps 10 options.

Just three to five of those additional checks and you’re in. Shouldn’t take you more than 1 minute.

4. You’re presented with a ballot that looks exactly like a printed ballot, except that all responses, including Yes/No responses, are randomized to eliminate position bias. Unanswered sections are highlighted until you’ve voted. You can’t select more than one from each category, and you needn’t select any at all.

5. After hitting the VOTE NOW button, the system shows you the questions to which you didn’t vote and asks if you would like to vote on those or not.

6. After submitting, you are asked to print a copy of your voting record. It contains a different unique, random alphanumeric key for use in conducting voting audits. The system will ask you if your record printed correctly, then exit.

7. If you provided an e-mail address at the DMV, the system will e-mail you a copy of your second unique random code with which you can view your voting selection online at any time, before and well after (6 months? A year?) the election. This is part of the fraud detection process. If you notice any discrepancies, you can walk into any election center and present your printed copy to let them know.

8. Audits come in many forms, some of which are automatic. A random sample of people are mailed and e-mailed auditing requests. Some people will be visited by auditors knocking on their doors. Because statistical random sampling can detect fraud using a sample that’s a tiny fraction of the voting population, both cost and intrusion is kept to a minimum.

The entire process employs physical security, electronic security, transaction security, and full multi-faceted auditing.

Not only is it FAR more secure than either the ballot box or mail-in ballots, but it’s also FAR less expensive.

Revamping the White House Press Corps

I recently read on Fox News that CNN is suing the White House:

CNN files lawsuit against Trump Administration to restore Jim Acosta’s White House credential

According to the terms of agreement which Acosta and CNN signed, access to the White House Press Corps is given SUBJECT TO GOOD BEHAVIOR.

Jim Acosta refuses to relinquish the microphone after his turn is over, even asking several additional questions beyond what he’s allotted, and even after being told to sit down and shut up by the President of the United States himself.

There’s actually quite a few more restrictions specified therein than that, but suffice it to say that Acosta clearly violated a number of them, on recorded video, and in front of the entire nation.

CNN certainly has grounds to sue, as it’s missing out on news coverage of White House press meetings, thereby incurring a financial loss. Financial injury/damage/loss are always grounds to file a lawsuit.

Proving whether or not those losses are fundamentally the result of the White House’s response or Acosta’s violation of the terms of agreement will be a matter for the courts to decide.

Here’s a FAR EASIER solution than going to court:

Formally and publicly ask CNN to replace Acosta with another qualified reporter, and when that reporter comes on board, read them the riot act i.e.

Jim Acosta refuses to relinquish the microphone after his turn is over, even asking several additional questions beyond what he’s allotted, and even after being told to sit down and shut up by the President of the United States himself.

the entire content of the agreement in the presence of three White House attorneys-witnesses while recording it on video. Of course, the WH will have to record and witness all future new WH Press Corps reporters, although after the next three or four, they can lower the burden to just one attorney-witness and a video recording as the agreement is read aloud (play a recording?) to the next candidate reporter.

By offering Acosta’s seat up to any other reporter, it’s no longer about CNN. It’s just about Acosta.

Not only does this pull the rug out from beneath CNN’s lawsuit, making it solely about Acosta, and not CNN, but it also protects against any future

lawsuits by creating both crystal clear and court-admissible instructions on what members of the White House Press Corps can and cannot do. The instructions cannot limit the questions that are asked. They absolutely can require reporters to both cease and desist all further questioning and sit down when the President turns to another reporter.

While you’re at it, I noticed several reporters shouting out their questions before being called up by the President. I know that’s a tradition. It makes the event feel more alive, electrifies the air. Sometimes, however, perhaps often, the White House should employ random selection. There should be a clause in the text of the agreement that clearly prohibits shouting out, “Mr. President!” Instead, on those more solemn days, hand reporters a random number as they walk through the door. Take their questions in order. If CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or others don’t get to ask a question for six weeks until their luck turns, so be it. That might even be a good thing for the quality of the questions being asked of our President. Currently, that quality, particularly from jerks like Acosta, is rather abysmal.