Friday, January 24, 2020

A Moral Call To Action

   



     There exists a very long list of statistics and historical examples that support the argument against the proposal of Sanctuary State status. There are also countless personal accounts of violence committed by illegals present in our country.

     What isn't being addressed is the moral call to action.

     On September 5th in 1980 Mother's Against Drunk Driving was founded by Candace Lightner after her 13 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Throughout the 1980's drunk driving laws grew increasingly tougher reducing DUI fatalities by over 1/2 as of last year.
The group had its greatest success with the enacting of a 1984 federal law, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, that introduced a federal penalty (a 5%later raised to 10%loss of federal highway dollars), for states that did not raise the minimum legal age for the purchase and possession of alcohol to 21. After the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, every state and the District of Columbia made the necessary adjustments by 1988.

Each year, The Century Council, a national non-profit organization funded by a group of alcohol manufacturers, compiles a document of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Between 1991 and 2013, the rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities (ARTF) per 100,000 population has decreased 52% nationally, and 79% among youth under 21.[4]


 
     The reason why this is relevant is because at the time there was a moral call to action. People were dying! States were forced to comply with the national laws or lose funding. The horror stories of fatalities appeared all over the nightly news.

     The moral question is: Why are we not addressing the deaths of 4000 Americans a year at the hands of illegals the same way we addressed the drunk driving deaths decades ago?

      Every time there is a mass shooting the call to confiscate everyone's weapons is raised. On the national debate stage one 2020 Presidential Candidate claimed, "..Hell, ya! We're going to take your AR-15's!"

     Despite the fact that the United States is amongst one of the lowest (statistically) in gun related fatalities in the world the moral call to confiscate guns is reaching a fever's pitch. A pitch that may lead to removing one of our most basic Constitutional Rights. Given the level of violence committed by illegals currently, those numbers are likely to double should we remove lawfully owned firearms before we remove unlawfully entering individuals.

    But no outcry when an American dies at the hands of an illegal.


Nationwide, from 2011 to 2018, non-citizens, mostly illegal aliens, committed 667,000 drug offenses, 42,000 robberies, 25,000 homicides, 91,000 sex crimes, 213,000 assaults, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 81,000 auto thefts, according to a report from the US General Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO also found that the average criminal alien had been arrested seven times.

     If these numbers existed for drunk driving fatalities the 18th Amendment would have been reinstated by now. In fact if you add up the numbers supplied here they total 1,214,000. The more Sanctuary status is awarded to cities and states those numbers will accelerate.

1,214,000.. I want you remember that number.

     In October a Mr. Perez Valesquez from Guatemala was arrested for a DUI in Cayuga County NY. AN ICE Detainer was previously attached to Mr. Valesquez for repeated unlawful entry into the United States. However, a Judge let him go on a 'promise' of a reappearance to court.

     On Nov. 10 Mr. Valesquez was arrested (again) for Vehicular Homicide while driving drunk (again).

     In 2018-2020  North Carolina arrested and charged 331 illegals with sexual offenses to children. Over half of those cases were repeat offenders, previously deported offenders and/or on some sort of ICE Detainer Watchlist.

     At what point in time will law makers, judges, or the media understand that when people are willing to break a Federal Law and cross the border illegally multiple times what makes any one think they will "..promise to reappear.."? In fact, virtually all of the catch and release cases fail to "..reappear.."

     Especially if they have a record of breaking the law repeatedly.

     Last year was a record year for detainees crossing illegally into the US. Excluding women and children and the 1/10th of 1% who actually do want a better life there was still a large number of "unknowns". We don't have any background records or ID on these people.  Many of these unknowns were processed and then released into the country on this "promise". Then there are the ''got-a-ways". Those who CPB were unable to catch.

     Are our elected officials willing to say publicly that they are comfortable with that?



     If an illegal is arrested for a crime and is held over for ICE Detainment that criminal is taken off the streets. That person is processed, tried and either sent to an American prison or handed over to authorities of their home countries. For it is a fair bet that if they are committing crimes here in this country they are probably wanted for crimes they committed in their former countries.

     It is also a fair bet that's one of the reasons they left and came here in the first place. Because they are wanted criminals back home.

     And another question begs on this subject of being comfortable with the unknowns.

     The CDC has reported that many cases of diseases long since eradicated in the United States are now surfacing once again. They point directly to the mass influx of people pouring into our country unlawfully. Europe has reported this as well.




     This is another "unknown" factor I am talking about. Never mind the violence factor.

     There are literally ten's, if not hundred's of thousand's of men, women and children carrying infections and diseases let loose in our nation.

          Their children are attending school stressing a system still in the throws of COVID recovery. None of these children are vaccinated but you can be damned sure YOUR kid wouldn't be let in the door without every inoculation under the sun. These people who slipped through the system, who aggressively cross the border multiple times are not the least bit interested in making sure little Hector has his DPT shot.

       But, Judges let them all go on a promise to re-appear.

     The frustrating thing about all of this is that immigration groups paint us as racist. The government will bus people in, manipulate the message, attempt (and in many cases succeed) to shut down our voice. All we are trying to do is point out the dangers, point out the facts, statistics and put a face on the effects of illegals in our country and the dangers of Sanctuary State/ City designations. 

    But now these Sanctuary areas are beginning to feel the effects of their misguided Leftist open arms policy. The video coverage doesn't lie. Cities are swamped with roving gangs of migrants from London to Los Angeles. Lootings are increasing. Oslo Norway is still the rape capital for Islamic violence against women. Ranchers along the southern border are arrested for defending their homes instead of the migrants being detained for trespassing and entering illegally. Over 80,000 children are simply lost. No one knows where they are or what happened to them.
    The entire system is upside down.

    The US Government is squarely to blame. There is ZERO desire to close the border. The massive opposition during the Trump years was a shocking indicator of the hatred the Democrats harbored against this country. But more importantly: who is funding these mass migrations? If things are so destitute in these rat hole countries where are all these people coming up with the cash? Cartels are wealthy but they have very little incentive to fund illegals on a massive scale. They have plenty of mules.
    The only other possibility are the nations themselves from where many of these people are coming from. Paying people to leave rather than keep them in prison, on public assistance (if it exists) or even feed is better economics.



    And as the previous video proves the incentive to slough off the least desirable of a third world nation's people may be the altruistic thing for more developed nations to absorb, it does very little for the host nation. As we can see already from NYC the social system has collapsed. A net gain of the tens of millions of migrants will destroy the fabric of our American culture. Giving them residency status, voting rights, driver's licenses and a monthly stipend will cause a zipper affect that will run through our courts, schools, homes and our quality of life.

    Until there is a moral call to action to stop this hemorrhage we will bear witness to the slow bleed out of this Republic and preside over it's wake.


....And That Is The Diatribe... 
    
         

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Rank Choice Voting-Tactical Voting and Borda-Part IX

   




    The interesting thing about RCV is the number of names they attach to it. In various countries that use this system it can be called any number of things, Apportioned voting, Preferable voting,  Approval voting, Instant Runoff Voting.  It is all the same. It does not pass the smell test of "Arrow, Condorcet, or Diverger's " Laws. The simple mathematics of this system defies all reason. In Fact, in an earlier segment of this expose' even Lewis Carroll deduced the impossibility of a Rank Choice Voting system electing a real candidate who just runs an awesome campaign and 'WOW's the electorate. Carroll agreed with Arrow that, in effect, you ARE voting best to last. Any attempt to change the system, or mechanism is just screwing with the mechanism. It does not present a candidate with some awesome idea. It just rig's it to ensure the trailing candidate wins by harvesting secondary votes from lesser candidates who lost outright in the first place. In 1850 MIT Professor William Ware dabbled in this and took those thrown away votes to trick the RCV idea so that the loser's voters could still exchange their second and third choices to elect a winner. The European system of RCV (at that time) just tossed all those third, fourth, etc losers outright. Ware tweaked this and thus we have modern day RCV in America.
    As John Stuart Mill stated voting is a trust between candidate and voter. If voting is a 'right' then it becomes property. And, what is to stop a person from selling his/her property? Or, in this case, 'Ranking' your vote? You are essentially selling your vote. You choose the candidate you WANT to win then selling your vote to the lesser candidate you may (or may not) be happy with.
    In my presentation last August on RCV former founder of The Worcester Tea Party Ken Mandile said that I was wrong on RCV being a form of vote harvesting. That vote harvesting is the collection of fake ballots and RCV is not that. Well, he is partially correct and partially incorrect.
    My two great guests on my podcast Tom Weaver of truethevote.org and radio host John Matthews from California who runs an organization to track voting have both been on my podcast several times, have read my expose' and agree and concur that Rank Choice Voting IS a form of vote harvesting.
   
    The political group known as Voter Choice for Massachusetts has accomplished the task of collecting the required signatures to put RCV on the November 2020 ballot. It is unknown at this time who funded this campaign. Petitions can be easily distributed grassroots.
    Their great claim is that they garnered signatures from all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns. If that is true then they only had to get 320 signatures from each city and town. An easy feat. You can be sure of the PR on this one.
   
 Where the shenanigans start is if the people of Massachusetts reject RCV. Then the big money will pour in for an end run to the State Supreme Court to overturn the results of the vote.

https://www.facebook.com/voterchoice2020/posts/159563875401168?notif_id=1576420542974705&notif_t=comment_mention

    In March of 2010 Burlington VT voted by referendum to repeal RCV in it's Mayoral Elections. A year later then Mayor Kiss attempted to bring it back. It was rejected again by a 58-42 margin. Unfortunately the key problem that RCV refuses to address is low voter turnout. Out of the 33,218 registered voters in Burlington VT only 7641 bothered to show up. Just as the low voter turnout re-elected Fall River's indicted Mayor and electing Ocasio Cortez low voter turnout is a must happen for RCV to succeed.

https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html?fbclid=IwAR0FcUqzexbF26Xc_QV-xmdlnm86E7i4DJwZHUOaKHyW9AJxOx9Fil2HK8A

 
    "... Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) advocates, especially FairVote's Terrill G. Bouricius (who lives in Burlington, formerly served there as alderman, also formerly served as a Vermont state legislator, calls himself a "political scientist," was instrumental in making IRV happen in Burlington starting in 2006, is denoted a "senior analyst" by FairVote, and in 2005 received a contract to design Burlington's IRV voter education program)... "

   
     Interesting. Former Democrat Alderman, awarded a contract to design a new voting system. Who wrote that check?   
     More importantly? Who funded the fight against the repeal of RCV in Burlington?

    The advocacy group supporting RCV in Burlington, Fifty Percent Matters, raked in over $20,400.00. Donations over $100 all came from outside Burlington which include $6500 from FairVote.org from Maryland. $1000 from Raymond Pecor (more on him later), $750 from Dem. St. Sen, Hinda Miller and $400 from League of Women Voters.
    But the Gold Medal goes to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group with under half the total raised. $10,000.00.

https://www.vpirg.org/


In 1975, the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund (VPIREF) was established as VPIRG's 501(c)3 outreach and education arm. For over 40 years, VPIRG has brought the voice of average Vermont citizens to the public policy debates concerning the environment, health care, consumer protection and democracy.
 
 
    While the 2010 VPIRG Exec. Director Paul Burns was quick to decry the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United; "Corporations are not people". He had no problem raking in over 1.5 million dollars for 2010. 28% from Foundations and Grants (many corporate funded) and 2% listed as 'other'.
    In fact RCV groups nationwide are anything but 'grassroots'. As I pointed out in previous segments the donors are corporations. Publicly funded corporations in the form of grants. Vermont is 15th in Democrat donations. The state is overwhelmingly Left.
    In 2019-2020 over 86% of all money raised by PAC's, individuals, foundations, etc went to Democrat candidates or Democrat causes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/states/summary.php?state=VT
                     
CategoryTotalRank
Total Itemized Contributions **$2,384,21147
Total to Candidates and Parties$2,408,996N/A
Total to Democrats$2,093,19441
Percent to Democrats86.9%1
Total to Republicans$275,02350
Percent to Republicans11.4%50
Individual donations ($200+)*$2,833,55847
Soft money donations$56,05242
PAC donations$84,51346
 






Tactical Nomination and Borda
 
    Rank Choice Voting becomes the Trojan Horse to Democrat hegemony because it promises to throw up a large number of candidates from that party. In a RCV style election you can have several candidates from the same party all getting ranked. The winner doesn't matter because in the end you elect either the winning candidate or a second place someone who shares your ideology. This is known as Tactical Nomination.
    The third tier candidate gets eliminated. In some cases even the rankings get tossed. In a race where one party's voters outnumber another the chances of having any representative opposition voice is nil. In fact lesser tier candidates can be purposely buried by vote rigging.
 
 
 
    The Borda count was developed independently several times, as early as 1435 by Nicholas of Cusa, but is named for the 18th-century French mathematician and naval engineer Jean-Charles de Borda, who devised the system in 1770.
     The Borda count determines the outcome of a debate or the winner of an election by giving each candidate, for each ballot, a number of points corresponding to the number of candidates ranked lower.
 
    This is insanity. The only places a RCV/Borda system is used in elections are Slovenia, Nauru, Kiribati and up until 1970 in Finland, but only for a select cadre of candidates.
 
     And this is exactly what Mill warned us about. As European Parliaments grew and gained more power over the Monarchies voting was reserved only to the privileged few. The RCV system adopted was devised by the aristocracy. This ensured that only preferred candidates gained the appropriate seats.
    It is a fact that every city using RCV as their system of voting is all Democrat. In an odd twist RCV fulfills one of it's promises. Eliminating the 'spoiler' candidate. No third party in their right mind would waste money running in these areas. Any Republican who runs faces (at best) some of the poorest numbers. Even 2nd or 3rd place rankings from sympathetic moderate Dems wouldn't be enough to clench a win.
    With Maine now firmly a RCV state and the ballot question in Massachusetts Vermont is poised to become the next state to fall. It is a known fact that the players pushing RCV are not just going to settle for cities or even states. As I have proven in past segments with the quotes from the Fairvote.org site itself they want to rewrite the Presidential elections as well. They are landing key states on each coast as well as growing in battleground states. The New Hampshire Primaries are considering RCV as well as the Iowa Caucuses.
    There WILL come a time when Democrats regain control over the White House and/or Legislature. As RCV grows in numbers, locations, the push to register illegals and the elimination of the Electoral College.
    RCV, like the Trojan Horse it is will present itself as the solution to our election problems.


.... And That Is The Diatribe...