Pelosi’s Big Fat Glaring Error

For months, now, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has been dogging President Trump at every opportunity, in lock-step with her rather long history of showboatmanship instead of doing the job of an elected member of Congress. Her most recent fiasco began when she tried to evade her responsibilities in tradition as Speaker of the House, hosting the annual State of the Union address, by manipulatively tying it to a reopening of the government…

...while continuing to reject a $6 billion one-time cost for the wall that will largely mitigate the $660 billion annual cost of undocumented aliens.

Talk about “penny-wise, pound foolish!” Here’s how this is unfolding:

January 3, 2019: Pelosi extended the invitation for President Trump to deliver his State of the Union address in the House chambers.

January 16, 2019: Pelosi said she and Trump “should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened.” Then, she tried to fly away on a supposed “tour of our troops in Afghanistan” that actually turned out to be a some 60-person (mostly family members) vacationing on the government’s dime in Brussels Belgium, Cairo Egypt, with a side-trip to Afghanistan to “SOMEHOW” justify the immense cost to the taxpayer. Naturally, this would take her completely out of the country for the rest of the month.

January 17, 2019: President Trump postponed her vacation to “Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan” until after “the Shutdown is over.”

January 23, 2019: Pelosi renegs on her January 3, 2019 invitation by claiming “the House will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union Address in the House Chamber until government has reopened.

Let’s get something straight, here: President Trump does not require House “authorization” in order to deliver his State of the Union. In fact, let’s go back to that mother of all documents, “the supreme Law of the Land,” our U.S. Constitution, to see what it actually DOES say about the State of the Union address:

Article II, Section 3: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…”

Our Constitution doesn’t say when, where, or how a president shall give Congress Information. It just says that he “shall give information” and “from time to time.” If President Trumped jotted down ideas on the back of a napkin and made photocopies sent to all members of Congress, he would be in strict compliance with the law. For that matter, he could simply invite the press into the Oval Office and deliver his speech, resolutely, from behind the Resolute Desk.

No House Chamber is even specified, much less required!

It continues: “…he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper “

Hmm… Does this mean a U.S. President has the authority to convene both the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, without any approval WHATSOEVER from Rep Pelosi, in the House Chamber, should he consider the crisis at our Southern Border to be an “extraordinary Occasion?”

YES. IT DOES.

In the news…

“Pelosi made clear that Trump is not welcome to address a joint session of Congress until the shutdown is over.”

NOT YOUR CALL, Pelosi. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

More news:

“I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the State of our Union,” Trump wrote in a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday afternoon.

BINGO. THAT’S HIS CALL, Pelosi. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

And yet again more news: “As a matter of congressional protocol, both the House and Senate must pass a concurrent resolution authorizing the president to deliver an address from the House chamber, though neither chamber has acted yet and no votes on such measures are planned this week.”

To this, I say, “As a matter of Article II, Section three, both the House and the Senate MUST convene whenever the President, upon his own authority, considers it appropriate to do so.”

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.

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.

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.  🙂