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
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

Jim Acosta
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.

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.

Why I Carry a Firearm

Back when I open carried (OC) everywhere I went, I would occasionally be asked why I carried a firearm.  I would often respond with the well-known, “because I can’t carry a cop.”  One person, a transplant from Minnesota responded with, “I don’t like firearms!”  I replied, “Well, I guess we have something in common — I don’t like bad guys!”  Fortunately, the funny look she got on her face was soon replaced by laughter.
When I carry concealed (CC), however, no one says anything.
Because…  It’s…  Concealed.
After a while, I wanted to find out just how reasonable or rational carrying a firearm really was.  What was the likelihood of me needing it in any given year?  Over my lifetime?  And for what purpose?  What are the national and local crime statistics?
I know some people who carry firearms because of mass shootings.  Given the statistical rarity of mass shootings, does that even compute?
Well, if you’re the only armed law-abiding citizen near a mass shooting, then yes, it computes.  By all means, stop the threat.  Save lives! 
In fact, Kaitlin Bennet is right.  Gun control policies, particularly “No Firearms” aka “Gun-Free Zones” simply do not work.  They’re where most mass shootings occur in the United States.  Furthermore, all it takes is ONE armed law-abiding citizen to stop a mass shooting. In fact, the FBI’s latest report on active shooter incidents in the U.S. clearly shows that armed and alert citizens have been and will continue to be part of the solution.
 
Even so, mass shootings are extremely unlikely. According to the November 8, 2018 Washington Post article entitled, “The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting,” 1,135 people have been killed since Charles Whitman gunned down 17 people from the University of Texas.clock tower on August 1, 1966.  That incident more or less began the modern era of mass shootings.  
I was born only a few short years before then, so in all that time, given our mean population between then and now, some 259.8 million, I have had a 1 in 228,899 chance of dying in a mass shooting.  That’s 0.000437%, or 0.44 deaths per 100,000 people.
 
Less than half of one death per 100,000 people seems pretty low, doesn’t it?  That’s because it is.  By comparison, here are a few of the Top 100 causes of death in the U.S.:
 
  • Bottom of the 100: Unspecified Diabetes Mellitus with Peripheral Circulatory Complications: 1.3 per 100k
  • Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge: 1.4 per 100k
  • Chronic viral hepatitis C: 1.5 per 100k
  • Alcoholic cirrhosis of liver: 3.4 per 100k
  • Motor vehicle accident: 3.5 per 100k
  • Murders and non-negligent manslaughters: 5.35 per 100k
  • Pneumonia: 16.2 per 100k
  • Top 1 out of 100: Atherosclerotic Heart Disease: 62.5 per 100k
  • Violent crime: 383 per 100k
Woah!  What?  You mean violent crime occurs six times more often than the Number One Leading Cause of Death?
Yes.  That’s exactly what I mean.  Specifically, violent crime in the U.S. is 6.13 times more prevalent than the leading cause of death.  Moreover, it’s 73 times more likely than murders and non-negligent homicide.
 
Thus, when I say I carry for my own personal protection, it’s not because of the possibility of a mass shooting which clocks in at 0.437 per 100k.  Rather, it’s because of “assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge, which clocks in 8 times higher at 3.4 per 100k.  It’s because murders and non-negligent manslaughters clock in 12 times higher at 5.35 per 100k.  
But mainly, it’s because violent crime clocks in 876 times more likely than mass shootings at a whopping 382.9 violent crimes per 100k.
 
For those who say, “That’ll never happen!” please note the motor vehicle accident rate, which, at 3.5 per 100k, is 109 times less than violent crime.  Yet, not only do we wear seat belts, but the federal government determined both the fatality and injury rate to be serious enough to MANDATE seat belt use.
 

Years ago, our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of an unarmed populace, so they MANDATED that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  They even stated that it was “necessary to the security of a free nation (state).

One gent, an ER doc, once spent the afternoon trying to convince me that firearms were “bad” because of “all the people he had to stitch up, if not zip up, in his emergency room.

Let’s examine that.

In 2013, there were 73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths related to firearms.  Their total comes to 107,141 firearms-related injuries and deaths.

Also in 2013, there were 1.3 million violent crimes.  Of those, roughly 725,000 violent crimes were stopped by armed citizens.  That’s 6.8 times more good than bad.  Furthermore, experts examining the UK’s firearms ban estimate that violent crime would increase to between 200% and 300% of current levels if firearms were banned in the U.S.  That’s an additional 1.3 to 2.6 million violent crimes, but without the attenuating effect of 750,000 stops.

The net effect would be a 192% increase from our current 1.3 million violent crimes per year to roughly 3.8 million violent crimes per year.  That’s nearly 3 times as much violent crime.  “No way!” you say.  Wrong.  The United Kingdom experience a tripling of its violent crime following its firearms ban, and violent crime remains 2.74 (“nearly 3”) times higher than it was before.

Now you know WHY I carry a firearm.  Now you know WHY I firmly support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  I support it because it’s safer — many times safer — than getting rid of them.

Yet along come the libtards, who cannot for the life of them figure out that assaults with firearms are just as deadly as automobile accidents, and that violent crime is 100 times more likely.  They’re all for wearing seat belts, not to mention prohibiting supersize soft drinks, but they refuse to even consider the only effective solution to a very real problem that’s 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths.

Bottom Line:  There were 1.28 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2017. That comes to 382.9 per 100k people, which is 109 times more likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident.

THIS is why I carry a firearm.  Of COURSE I carry a firearm.  You should, too.  You wear seat belts, don’t you?  Then why wouldn’t you protect yourself against a threat that 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths?

To all the blitheringly idiotic liberals who think they know better:  No, you do not.  You don’t know the facts.  You’re ignorant.  All you know is the predigested liberal anti-gun mantra, factless ideals that have no basis in reality.

The FBI’s own statistics blow all of your anti-gun and gun control arguments totally out of the water.  You’re idiots with irrational fears.  Not only do so-called “gun-free zones” never work, they backfire, actually attracting mass shooters.  When it comes to firearms, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and really need to shut the hell up and stop interfering in other people’s lives.

Outstanding University Policy on Concealed Carry

The following FAQs are taken from the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Weapons on Campus page maintained by CU Boulder’s Police Department.  They are very well organization and exceptionally well-written.  I am preserving them here as a prime example of How It’s Done.

Only handguns are covered by the statute.  A handgun is a pistol, revolver, or other firearm the length of the barrel which, not including any revolving, detachable, or magazine breech, does not exceed twelve inches.  Other weapons – rifles, semi-automatic weapons, knives and other edged weapons – are still not permitted on campus.

A.  Anyone is permitted to ask, but the individual asked is not required to reply unless asked by a police officer.

A.  “Brandishing” is displaying a weapon in a threatening manner.  If you see anyone brandishing a weapon, call the Police at “911” immediately and take precautions to protect yourself (i.e., evacuate the area or retreat behind a locked door, depending on the circumstances).

A.  A person with a concealed carry permit must take reasonable measures to conceal the weapon. For example, if a person’s coat opens in the act of raising his or her arm to ask a question and a gun can be seen, it is not a violation. A violation would be a person taking a gun out of concealment or otherwise displaying/brandishing it.

A.  No. The mere act of carrying a handgun (with a concealed carry permit as authorized by law) is not in and of itself a disruption of class activity. Concealed carry permit holders should not be excluded from class under any supposition that their presence alone is a “disruption.” Another person’s adverse reaction to someone carrying a handgun in accordance with the concealed carry act is not grounds to eject the permit-holder from the classroom.

A.  While faculty can ask a student who has a concealed carry weapon permit to report that status to them, or place in a course syllabus the request that students report this status to them, students are not required to provide this information to any faculty member. Any voluntary reporting of concealed carry permit status by a student to a faculty member should be done privately. Faculty should not, under any circumstances, coerce students into complying with their requests or pressure them to answer concealed carry queries

A.  Yes, if they have a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.

A.  No. This information is not a matter of public record.

A.  No. There are no “carve outs” under the statute for those who have a concealed carry permit. CU employees in these areas who have clients that hold concealed carry permits are free to ask their clients not to bring weapons into these environments, however, provision of care and resources cannot be conditioned upon compliance with the request, nor can the request be made in a coercive manner. Clients are also free to decline the request.

A.  There are no circumstances in which issuing this kind of directive would be permitted. Appointing authorities and supervisors may ask all employees to voluntarily not bring legal concealed carry weapons into the workplace, but they cannot require it or otherwise coerce their employee(s) through the workplace relationship to comply with the request

A.  Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed. For assistance in any situation of concern, such as a performance review, please contact the Office of Human Resources at the link below.

A.  No

A.  Yes, the safest course of action is to call the University of Colorado Police by dialing “911.” They will respond and make contact with an individual to determine if that person has a concealed carry permit and is carrying a weapon legitimately or brandishing it illegally. All concealed carry permit holders are required to carry their permits on their person if they are also carrying their weapon.

A.  No. A condition of purchasing a ticket to these events at CU-Boulder is that the person agrees not to bring a weapon into the venue, even if that person has a valid concealed carry permit.

Contrary to popular and widely publicized misconception, allowing concealed carry on campus did not immediately erupt into a bloodbath.  In fact, just the opposite happened as crime — particularly violent crime — took a precipitous nose-dive while not one firearms related incident has occurred in the six and a half years since the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2A on campus in March 2012.

For further information on protecting the rights of LAWFUL ADULTS while attending colleges and universities around the country, please visit Students for Concealed Carry.

In closing, I would like you to think about the following two graphics:

campus carry

As a graduate of Virginia Tech, I know full well the only way to stop a nut with a gun is a good guy with a gun:

Have a nice day.  🙂

Yes, by all means, vote!

An acquaintance who said, “I voted Red!” was immediately bashed for sharing her opinion. The individual said, “Nobody cares. A vote is private. JUST VOTE ????
 
Here’s my response:
 
OUTSTANDING!
 
As for the individual, in case you haven’t noticed, the United States Constitution, specifically our First Amendment, recognizes, empowers, and protects the right of everyone in our nation to choose to make public their vote by any and every means at their disposal.
 
She is exercising her Constitutional rights. With all due respect, your attempt to get her to stop exercising her Constitutional rights is prime example of what’s wrong with the Democrat Party today: It’s ok for others to have opinions, but only so long as their opinions match yours.
 
On June 3, 2014, Senate Democrats took the first steps to rewrite the First Amendment. They claimed, “the foundations of democracy are threatened.”
 
It wasn’t just one of them. Fully Forty-Three Senate Democrats sponsored the amendment! That was nearly all of them, if not actually all of them.
 
This is the party you’re supporting, a party that routinely steps on YOUR Constitutional rights and freedoms every time it suites their pathetic craving to remain in control. The idea that we are “a government of the people, by the people, for the people” (A. Lincoln) is abhorrent to them. They have no respect for differences of opinion, precisely evidenced by Pelosi hushing a junior senator who “dared” to clap at President Trump’s State of the Union Address — as members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices have always done.
 
It’s rather sickening to watch people blinding voting Democrat like they’ve always done without realizing, understanding, or accepting the Democrat party of today is a vast departure from where it was just fifty years ago. I’d have voted for John F. Kennedy in a heartbeat. Any of today’s Democrats, however, engage in detestable, if not reprehensible practices.
 
We’ve always been a great nation. Now we have liberals chanting, “America was never great!” in the streets, despite the fact that most economic records have been absolutely shattered over the last nearly two years.
 
Democrats holding resolutely to their ideals cannot for the life of them figure out why. The rest of us are celebrating the rebirth of our great nation under non-idealistic policies that actually work.
 
And that’s a GOOD thing.
 
See you at the polls.
 
By the way, I’m voting RED. Why? Because I’m a Republican? No. Because I’ve studied business for 35 years and have three degrees, two masters in the field, so I know WHY our economy is doing so well.
 
I’m watching one news clip after another as shown in Death of a Nation as countless liberal news persons, celebrities, and others absolutely lost their minds.
 
Democrats may very well take the House this time around. They may take the Senate. But if they do it’s because people voted. And if they don’t, it will be for precisely the same reason: people voted. Before you vote, however, I simply encourage you to vote for what works, rather than some failed ideal. Vote reality.
 
And have a nice day. 🙂