Tuesday, July 28, 2020
I Believe I Just Got The 'Goodbye Look'. The Insanity of The Left
It becomes obvious to any one to step back, step away, or. Just go away. You become irrelavent. You matter nothing. Old, or just no one cares anymore.
Even my own children tell me to shut up. Even though you are fighting for their future. Despite everything you taught them, they just are so succumbed in this world of hatred, must try to live within it, to the point where your words become dangerous to them. They must now navigate a future of silence or be violently attacked.
My great friends on the Conservative side have turned away as well. They are afraid. Standing up for freedom with Trump flags on a sidewalk was all that and a bag of chips until the bag went empty and all that was left was a hollow chant while Marxists ran riot and cops just stood down shrugging their shoulders.
And rightfully so. Doxxing. Targeting. Guilt by association. FBI shows up at your door because of a post while the city around you burns.
America is doomed. Soon I will be silenced. But this old bastard has one more thing to say before my front door gets breached.
(Winston and I tip our cups of Victory Gin in salute to each other.)
Who are these people? Just Google BLM. Just Google ANTIFA.. Like Glenn Beck always says.. " Do your own research!" I am the Meat And Potatoes Guy! I write this blog! After 12 years of this (and my show) do you actually think what I say and write is NOT backed up by facts? These people are anarchists and they are violent. Two of the leaders were on NPR openly stating this fact. Click the donate icon on their web page and see where your money is going. If Biden wins and/or we lose the House or Senate? No one is safe.
After my very controversial post on FB they did not come after me. They came for my children.
It is textbook Marxism and Alinsky.
They came after an innocent woman who was there in Worcester helping to paint Black Lives Matter on MLK BVLD. So, all you did was prove me correct. All you did was prove everything historians have said since Marxism started.
They are violent, hateful and they have no problem eating their own. It isn't (and never was) about tolerance and diversity. It never was about racial justice. No Leftist movement ever, in the history of Leftist movements was ever about freedom, equality or any of the bullshit proclaimed.
It has always been about power and control. Hatred and violence is their strong arm.
Once Communism took over Russia the banner waving anarchists who destroyed, burnt, tore down, raped and pillaged, assaulted, looted. Even the politicians, who are now trying to placate and side with you in solidarity; demanding police be removed.... Were... Eventually... Removed themselves...
So, enjoy this time in the sun my BLM/ANTIFA Comrades. The boxcars are awaiting your eventual shipping away. History is repleat with this ever skipping vinyl record of the same verse over and over again.
You are stupid. Not ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by learning, reading, listening, understanding.
No, you are just plain stupid. You instantaniously react with violence and hatred. You operate on the Limbic system of your brain. It is pointless of me to explain what the Limbic part of your brain is because.. YOU ARE STUPID!
Remember! It is all about tolerance and diversity! Never mind the store you just destroyed might be black owned. Maybe a Latino, Asian, LGBT family that worked hard and poured all their money into it. It is all about social justice right?
As the flames leap higher into the night sky.
You have no idea what you are rioting about because you are stupid fucks. Some guy said something on FB so let's attack his innocent daughter. Watch any Mark Dice or Ami Horowitz video and the SMH stupidity of these people will make cutting out and swallowing Drano an actual option.
Here is another molitov cocktail.. Go for it! Set off another round of fireworks at police. Awesome! Assault more innocent women with kids in the car. Watch the video of the single mother attacked and her three year old drop kicked. Why not?
Its all about racial justice. Diversity, free speech, protest. Right? Oh look! There's a Starbucks! Lets burn it down cuz....... Just cuz....!
Lets kill some guy's horses cuz..... Just cuz...!
If (and that is a big if) you eventually attain your power. The actual people who rise to the top will come for all of you. You will be rounded up. Summarily executed in the street. The rest shipped off to gulag or work camps because capitalism will be no more: So, how will you get simple things like cell phones or coffee. You will be required to produce this stuff... Or be shot.
But hey!!! It is all about equality.. Right? You took everyone's money, homes, burnt down the businesses.. You stuck it to the rich man! BLACK LIVES MATTER!! BLACK LIVES MATTER!! BLACK LIVES MATTER!!
Why are the lights out? Why don't the faucets work? Uhmm, I need baby formula..
Always remember. You stood up for racial justice! (as a black child starves).
Even Malcolm X told you in his speeches that you are being played by political forces larger than your movement. But, never mind him. Tear down another statue. Set another building on fire.
In all the riots I have watched and filmed myself, at no point in time have I actually seen a true African/American. Not one person recently emigrated from Africa. Not one!
Would you like to know why?
I have spoken to many in my community. ( I am a journalist after all. ) They want NOTHING... NOTHING!!! to do with you stupid BLM/ANTIFA idiots! They actually come from countries with actual, REAL despotism, racism, violence, dictatorships. They came to America for (hold onto your vagina hats)... Freedom. They do not want to be associated with any of this insanity. They are Christians, mostly from Ghana, Sierra Leonne and Liberia...
Talk about three places with racial injustice.
Ohh, wait.. Here is a thought.. Why don't you BLM/ANTIFA people go to these places and set shit on fire there?
I know. It's a dumb question. None of you would last fifteen minutes in any of these rat's nests. You would be shot on site, sucked up, sold on the slave market and your 64 genders would be shown a new hole to stuff a cock into. Meanwhile you riot in shoes and clothes made in countries where ACTUAL slavery exists. You even loot stores so you can steal more or it! How fucked up is that?
And now for the apology.
I am sorry my children have been caught up in this net. I will rot in hell for what I said and the violence that has come upon their heads. This is my doing and I accept full responsibility.
Leave my children alone.
However, if you want me to apologize for what I said? Well, toss another coin into the wishing well pal cuz it ain't happening. All you have done is prove me correct. Instead of a cogent debate, exchange of ideas and some sort of compromise, speaking to me like Americans and pointing out where I was wrong you have (again) just reverted to your Limbic. Your first thought is violence and hatred. It is all you know.
I never said I would shoot protestors. We all have a right to speak up, speak out, demand change. Go vote!
But once you start assaulting, looting, burning. You are no longer a protestor. You are a threat to safety and you become an insurrectionist. Under the Sedition Act and the Patriot Act you are subject to arrest, trial and the penalty is death. It is a Capital crime. By your actions you violate every one of the ten Amendments to the Constitution as it it pertains to every other American.
So, like many in this country we are armed and we will respond accordingly. Where necessary we will pro-actively face you down in the street and bring violence upon you to stop the looting and riots. Our neighborhoods are filled with all creeds and colors. Filled with children. We will protect them. Many of them are my friends. Many are business owners from all walks of life and I am humbled and honored to enter their establishments, greet them kindly and conduct business.
I have two types of weapons in my posession. Guns and shovels.
The first stops the problem.
The second disposes of the problem.
.... And That Is The Diatribe....
Sunday, March 15, 2020
The One Trick Pony- The True Impact of TCI. Part II
It is a narrow minded and heartless idea to add insult to injury by taxing the poor and unemployed on the very lifeblood they need for transportation.
But in the new era of "green energy", Maura Healey has embarked upon a new path to drag up an old tax increase.
Governor Baker pushed TCI. As if the riots in France were no indication of the impact of Legislative Climate Initiatives Baker forgot his own response with voters over gasoline taxes. Then Candidate Baker, was firmly opposed to the tax increases. This was a major issue of his campaign.
Governor Baker pushed TCI. As if the riots in France were no indication of the impact of Legislative Climate Initiatives Baker forgot his own response with voters over gasoline taxes. Then Candidate Baker, was firmly opposed to the tax increases. This was a major issue of his campaign.
Maybe he was just pushing it off until Maura moved in.
This, from a Boston Globe article at the time:
This, from a Boston Globe article at the time:
"The people who are really going to be hit hard as a result of this are people who are driving into Boston every day, day-to-day workers, people driving for Uber, Lyft for work. They’re going to see dramatic increases," study author William Burke said. "I think our estimates are even optimistic compared to what could actually happen."
Burke is mostly correct. However, Burke is certainly NOT poor or unemployed. Nor does Burke live West of Worcester Mass. Never mind driving into Boston. How about a person in Ringville Mass having to drive to get gas to get a child to school, and then to work (another 20-30 min. drive). Then, they have to drive home, pick up the child, get milk, get gas.
You see my point?
The poor suffer.
NOTE: I live in rural Connecticut. It is $20 a day in gas to get anywhere, any day, for any reason.
In 2014 I interviewed the 2nd Franklin County District Candidate Karen Anderson. She and Susanna Whipps were looking to replace the longtime Democratic Incumbent Denise Andrews. One of the main topics of this interview was the Gasoline Tax.
In 2014 I interviewed the 2nd Franklin County District Candidate Karen Anderson. She and Susanna Whipps were looking to replace the longtime Democratic Incumbent Denise Andrews. One of the main topics of this interview was the Gasoline Tax.
Not only does a tax on fuel affect businesses, commuters and transportation companies the hardest hit are residents in the more rural areas of the state. Residents East of the I-495 corridor cannot comprehend this. In most of those cities and towns you can take a walk, or a bike to a local store and acquire whatever you need at any time. In the rural areas of Massachusetts that's virtually impossible.
Disregard the economic issues facing rural communities. The sheer logistics, geographics and topography is the affect. Kids still have to walk a way's home from designated school bus drop offs. If you are parent with a special needs child, the complications are exponential.
It is a fair bet many of these parents have to drive their children to and from their destinations. The costs in fuel alone must be crippling.
The tax will cripple the poor and extoll hardships on the middle and lower class of Western Massachusetts. And it will do nothing for "transportation" as the Governor claims.
The tax will cripple the poor and extoll hardships on the middle and lower class of Western Massachusetts. And it will do nothing for "transportation" as the Governor claims.
The MBTA does not run out to North Adams Madam Governor.
This is entirely unacceptable. The poor suffer.
I am not going to cloud this piece with manufactured Climate Statistics. Energy policy must be derived from the needs of those who need energy the most and NOT from Legislators who neither understand those needs but in many cases; never pay for it themselves.
I knew Geoff Diehl. I interviewed him. I ran into him on his campaigns many times, and he always took the time to speak with me personally, He is a gracious man and knew firsthand what the TCI tax would mean. If he was the Governor none of this crap would even be on the table.
From a recent article in The Commonwealth Beacon: by Bruce Mohl 1/17 24b1/1/17 24y
"At a time when the state is attempting to encourage a dramatic shift to electric vehicles, the governor indicated it was time to chart a new course for transportation financing in what she called the clean energy era. "
I knew Climate Change would come into play at some point. But the money. What happened to the money?
"...Democrats in the chamber gave Healey warm applause throughout her speech, but even among them there was concern about all the new spending initiatives at a time when state tax revenues are static. Revenue projections are falling short of target levels this fiscal year, forcing Healey to close a nearly $1 billion budget gap by paring back spending by $375 million and tapping interest earned on state bank deposits. Healey did not mention the budget cuts in her remarks..."
Wait the fuck-a-sec... Wasn't there money in surplus from the previous Administration?
"But she did mention free lunch meals for public schools students, stockpiling the abortion pill known as mifepristone."
Oh, so, is that where the money went?
"House Speaker Ron Mariano, a supporter of the tax cut, said he is looking for more details that will come with Healey’s budget proposal next week. “Believe me, we’ll hear if any line items are underfunded,” Mariano told reporters. “Free school meals, that’s something I really believe in and it’s going to be expensive. There are a lot of things in the budget that are expensive already.”
Oh, make sure of that Ron! Watch out for those line items that affect YOUR town. Ronny goes on to explain how much money from the "Millionaire Tax" is yet to be determined. Cuz, they have to figure out how many people making over one million a year packed up and left the state.
What a tool.
So, we can clearly see it is business as usual in the golden dome of Boston. Illegals get all the perks, Business owners get fucked. The poor pay more for gas and groceries. Prices rise, taxes rise and our elected (cough) vote in another raise and wonder why shit is all fucked up here in Massachusetts.
But the new gas tax will solve our Transportaion issues.
....And That Is The Diatribe....
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.
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¬if_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
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
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
| Category | Total | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Total Itemized Contributions ** | $2,384,211 | 47 |
| Total to Candidates and Parties | $2,408,996 | N/A |
| Total to Democrats | $2,093,194 | 41 |
| Percent to Democrats | 86.9%† | 1 |
| Total to Republicans | $275,023 | 50 |
| Percent to Republicans | 11.4%† | 50 |
| Individual donations ($200+)* | $2,833,558 | 47 |
| Soft money donations | $56,052 | 42 |
| PAC donations | $84,513 | 46 |
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...
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...
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Rank Choice Voting-Part VIII-Voter Fraud and Democrat Hegemony
"....We’ve been bussing people in ... for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now. We’re just going to find a different way to do it..."
Democrat Operative Scott Foval Dep. Political Dir. 'People for The American Way' Organization.
According to the Heritage Foundation's Voter Fraud Database there have been hundreds and hundreds of cases of voter fraud nationwide dating back decades. From fraudulent ballots cast, petition fraud, abstentee ballot fraud, vote harvesting-the list goes on and on with the majority of these cases leading to criminal convictions.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud#choose-a-state
My interview with California Conservative Party Chair and The Election Integrity Project, host of 'That Radio Show' Jon Matthews spoke extensively with me for an hour about how California is voter fraud central. And as I spoke to Jon he mentioned that the Heritage Foundation database only records actual cases brought to light. It does not even begin to scratch the surface of how far this goes.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/ktntradio/m-p-jon-matthews-interview-6-26-19
In Utah the 2016 Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin is now managing a PAC to push Democrat causes and Rank Choice Voting. This from a June 26th article on Capital Research Center, author Hayden Ludwig.
The NeverTrump activist and his running mate, Mindy Finn, run a pair of advocacy nonprofits created in the wake of the 2016 election which claim to "defend democratic norms and institutions,"
But in the two years since McMullin and Finn created these groups—the lobbying shop Stand Up Republic and its fundraising arm, Stand Up Republic Foundation—they’ve only succeeded in taking money from the Left to push its policies.
Stand Up Republic wants automatic voter registration, the backbone of every Progressive effort to shade conservative states Democrat blue.
Earlier this month, Stand Up Republic released its "Electoral Reform Agenda," which reads suspiciously like the Democratic Party’s own notorious electoral wish list, H.R. 1 (also called the "For the People Act").
H.R. 1 goes a step further: automatic and same-day voter registration up to mere moments before Election Day, inviting a maelstrom of voter fraud problems for the estimated 50 million new voters who would be automatically enrolled under the bill, many drawn from databases of state and federal welfare recipients.
And here comes the smoking gun..
But the most egregious "reform" supported by Stand Up Republic is ranked-choice voting, a system of casting ballots heavily favored by the liberals who believe it will favor their candidates.
While H.R. 1 does not explicitly legislate a ranked-choice voting system, a clause in the bill tees it up by enabling the "ability of replacement systems to administer ranked choice elections."
Let us get back to California.
From the Wall Street Journal in 2018;
Voters in a 2017 special election for an open seat in the California state Assembly reported activists harassed them at their doors to fill out ballots for specific candidates and hand them over.
The result: two Orange County Republican congressional candidates—state Assemblywoman Young Kim and Rep. Mimi Walters—saw their sizeable Election Day leads shrivel into multi-point defeats once thousands of mail-in paper ballots were returned and counted, many postmarked on Election Day.
San Leandro California. One of the 12 cities that embraces RCV.
".... San Leandro, like many cities in the Bay Area, is in crisis. About half of our community members are renters and skyrocketing rents are pushing them out of their homes, either displacing them out of the Bay Area or putting them on the streets.....Lack of ethics and integrity is, indeed, a generalized problem in San Leandro city government....The former City Manager, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment by the head of a local nonprofit would become public, sent out a rambling and utterly unprofessional letter to the press...Rather than fire him on the spot for unprofessional behavior, the Council put him on paid leave for months while he looked for a new job and and gave him a $350K parting gift..."
".... What San Leandro needs is progressive and ethical leadership.... Note that San Leandro has ranked choice voting (RCV) for its Mayor and City Council races...."
.. Oh, It gets better!
".... Incumbent Pauline Cutter ....Mayor of San Leandro... Early in her term, her daughter was hired by the City (with the approval of the City Manager) for a highly-paid position in the Parks and Recreation department – despite nepotism being explicitly forbidden by the Charter of the City of San Leandro...."
However San Leandro does not give up it's Leftist/RCV leanings easily. They have another stellar candidate up for election.
"....Fortunately, San Leandro has another choice: Jeromey Shafer. The co-founder of San Leandro for Bernie and leader of Our Revoution San Leandro, Shafer is intelligent, hard working, thoughtful and unapologetically progressive..."
Make sure you click off the proper boxes. "Meet the new boss.. Same as the old boss.." The list goes on. Democrats under RCV.
Incumbent Deborah Cox is another white-moderate who supports police militarization and mass surveillance and opposes rent-control. She drew controversy for not returning the financial contribution of a politician who used the "N" word in a public meeting.
Eva Arce, a newcomer to politics, is a strong progressive
Ken Pon is also a moderate, but to the left of Cox.
You mean there are actual people in California Left of the Leftists?
City Council District 3: Victor Aguilar
School Board member Victor Aguilar was a progressive back when people didn’t want to admit to being progressive.
Margarita Lacabe goes out on a limb in this next statement.
Every once and awhile a Leftist author gets it right.
While I cannot read anyone’s mind, after 8 years in the Central Committee I can guess why most candidates were endorsed. In general, the Committee want to endorse candidates that are likely to win, so we endorse incumbents and clear front runners. We like candidates that bring us money, as a committee and as consultants, so we endorse those with ties to developers and big donors. We want to pretend we support labor, so we often endorse candidates that have labor support – though that alone is seldom enough. We like our friends, so we endorse candidates that hang out in Democratic party circles And we like to play politics – some of us are even in the business of making money from politics – so we horse trade. You’ll note that there is no "I" in "we," not all of us play those games. But those of us who vote on endorsements based on the quality of the candidate or their values are a definite minority.
John Stuart Mill said; "...The majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives..."
In a video I produced in Nov. of 2017 Howard Fain of Voter Choice Mass (an RCV activist group) made this statement in front of The Worc. Tea Party about imcumbents under RCV.
It is at the 2:28 mark of my shoot;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4y3tM3EuCE&list=PLU_Z4p-v1UQZSKw62f2lfyrEoRg1xxWNb&index=434
RCV does not.
Will not- change incumbency. In fact? It ensures it.
It is specifically designed to ensure a one party rule. Fain goes on to side-step a former Libertarian VP Nominee about how elections discourages third party candidates at the 2:30 mark. In the second video I shot that night at the 1:45 mark Fain puts up a Powerpoint where Voter Choice Mass lists all the wonderful advantages of RCV.
Unfortunately, each of the statements made contradicts each of the statements made.
- Eliminate spoilers and vote splitting
- Encourage more people to run
- Enjoy more positive campaigns
- Give voters more choice and more voice
- Transform politics in Massachusetts
First of all, if you want to discourage 'spoilers' and 'vote splitting' then don't 'encourage more people to run'. And, if you don't encourage, or, allow more people to run you will not have 'more positive campaigns'. In addition, this certainly does not 'give voters more choice and more voice' by eliminating third party candidates labeling them as 'spoilers'.
The last one should make you pause and ask;
What does it mean exactly to 'transform politics in Massachusetts'?
Well, if the 12 cities that use Rank Choice Voting are any indicator it means to ensure a Democrat win every election season.Teluride Colorado. Basault. (Soon) Pueblo
San Francisco (and I wrote about that in Parts I and II)
Easthampton Mass. 2019
Cambridge Mass since 1941
San Leandro Cal.
Minneapolis/ St. Paul MN.
The list goes on and is growing..!
https://www.newsmax.com/scottrasmussen/daley-fair-vote-rcv-san-francisco/2018/06/01/id/863593/
And my detractors will claim I am wrong on this.
The cities are too many to explain in one short blog post.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
As I have in writing this exhaustive expose'.
I have found the very same stories as I posted above about San Leandro. Each of these cities are staunch Democrat controlled. All of them use RCV. All of them are mired in fraud, waste, over taxation, nepotism and they keep electing the same cast of characters (all from the same party) over and over... And over again.
The Marquis de' Condorcet posited in his paradox that opening elections to a plethora of candidates will yield over a trillion various votes (given today's number of voters). None of them electing a winner by "majority". This defy's Duverger's Law of the best candidate wins. Under RCV you have any amount of decisions and (under Arrow's Impossibilty Theorum) you simply choose the best candidate and rank down to the least favorite to become the winner.
Now I posit to you the reader The Maider Axiom.
You just lost in 2nd place in an election. You may even have lost in 3rd place.
But thanks to RCV every one else who voted for everyone else ranked you as second or third place runner up.
Recounting all those votes (yes, you are voting multiple times) you suddenly become the winner!
You go before the Press to spout your win and the quintessential question is asked:
"... How do account for your win even though you lost in the first round of voting?.."
"... Uhhh.. cuz voters chose me second and third.."
Wow..... Seriously?.. Just... Wow...
Sooo..
When only 10,000 people show up to vote in a district of (say) 200,000 registered voters (Repub/Dem/Lib) and you get chosen 2nd or 3rd and then ranked up to win. How is this offering voters a better choice? How does this open campaigns to more candidates? How does this better represent the electorate?
Oh, but, Wait!
A van just arrived with 1000 ballots just discovered in a school closet four days after polls closed. All of them marked Democrat..
.... Including their rankings..
And now the 2nd or 3rd place loser (Voted..err Ranked) to win gets to represent us...
The Democrat Hegemony
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part VII Origins-John Stuart Mill and Duverger's Law
"..freedom might be for the time destroyed by a single unfairly obtained popular vote.." John Stuart Mill
The origins of RCV date as far back as the 1850's in Europe but it is hard to pin point exactly where and when it was birthed and where the first form of an RCV election was held. This came at a time when the shackles of Monarchy were being dissolved and Parliaments gained significant power. The only problem was that the average citizen was still locked out of the process. Landlords, aristocrats, business owners, the bourgeois were the core contituency of the time. A head to head competition that includes the rank and file would destroy that control. This is what made the American system so unique. The 'people' could directly elect those representatives that closely related to the country's particular regions and population.
Fairvote.org /Krist Novoselic
In the early 1860's, the influential English thinker and member of Parliament John Stuart Mill found a way to accommodate majority rule while still give the minority a voice. He came across English barrister Thomas Hare’s pamphlet "On The Election Of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal."
https://www.fairvote.org/a-brief-history-of-ranked-choice-voting
John Stuart Mill insisted on two core principles for better government. 1; The full participation of citizens concerning voting. 2; Competent and enlightened candidates. We have neither today and RCV will do little change that.
Mill wrote in his book Considerations on Representative Government: "... Those who say that suffrage is not a trust but a right will scarcely accept the conclusions to which their doctrine leads. If it is a right, if it belongs to the voter on what grounds can we blame him for selling it (his vote), or using it to recommend himself to any one whom it is his interest to please.."
At what point do we sanction a voting system where our votes are 'sold' or (in this case) 'ranked'?
In Chapter 10 Mill explains in detail this very problem of aristocracy working hand in hand to solidify power. They devised a system where votes could essentially be horse traded to ensure that only the "proper people" gained their rightful seats.
''...the higher and richer classes were in complete possession of the government. Their power was the master grievance of the country. The habit of voting at the bidding of an employer or of a landlord was so firmly established that hardly any thing was capable of shaking it.."
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/John-Stuart-Mill-Considerations-on-Representative-Government.pdf
Many voting rights activist groups insist that voting IS a right. Thus the term 'voting rights'. But it is not. No where is it codified in the Constitution that voting is a 'right'. Even the 19th Amendment simply expands legal suffrage to women where it once did not exist. Mill argues that voting is a trust between the people and those who they choose to represent them.
In plurality voting a stable system of government is obtained. Each side has a strong opposition. Coalitions are lauded over but are very weak institutions. Essentially nothing gets done because no one party has an upper hand in either chamber. There is always opposition to whatever idea is presented and it is very easy for a 35% minority to dissolve the coalition. Italy has had 65 'coalition' governments for the past 70 years because of this very problem. And the problem is exacerbated if voter turnout is dismal. Who actually is represented by that 35% which dissolves the coalition if only half the eligible voters voted?
Proponents of RCV will cite Mill as a supporter but I disagree.
Mill states; "....But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all? ... Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard?... Unless they are, there is not equal government ... there is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them, contrary to all just government, but, above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality as its very root and foundation..."
The only problem with a two party system is what we are seeing today. A take over of one by extremists as is the case with the Democrat Party. Our current election system assures a short tenure for a representative should that person turn rogue. But if America adopts any form of proportional, single transferable, apportioned or rank choice then it is highly conceivable for a one party hegemony. The 12 US cities that use RCV are all Democrat controlled and show no signs of changing. The Republican reps in those cities are tiny in number (if they exist at all) and have little chance of gaining any more seats. Couple that with blue states experiencing a net loss of population it is a fair bet that those people moving out ARE registered Republicans.
Mill goes on to state; "...The majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives..."
Fairvote.org's Krist Novoselic has Mill mistaken. Mill wasn't trying to find a way to give the minority fair representation he was warning us of popular voting systems.
Duverger's Law
In the 1950's French Sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized that plurality voting in districts that hold seats between two opposing candidates essentially leads to one or the other winning by a simple model of who runs the best campaign.
Simple. Right? Not exactly.
Duverger explains how this system discourages third parties. Not by a doctrine that denies them a seat at the table but because there simply aren't enough voters to support these third parties. They simply don't have the numbers. It does not mean that these parties do not sway an election and it certainly does not imply these third parties have no right to put up a candidate. American history is repleat with third parties and in rare cases winning seats. This is a healthy thing.
A great example is Ross Perot in 1992. Although he won zero Electoral Votes he still garnered 19% of the popular vote.
This was a historical election. Historic for a couple reasons. 1; Ross Perot and 2; One of the lowest voter turnouts in Presidential Elections. Clinton garnered only a couple dozen million popular votes.
"...The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate parties ran candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
And polarization is the catchphrase of Rank Choice Voting Advocates.
"...A sharp increase in partisan rigidity in Americans’ voting patterns has led to less competitive state and national elections and more predictable outcomes based on which party is in the majority. Fewer legislators fear losing in general elections, and fewer still can win in the other party’s "turf.".."
https://www.fairvote.org/polarization#polarization_key_facts
Supposedly polarization has led to party hegemony with incumbents having no fear of losing seats. Some even run unopposed election year after election year. RCV claims to open up this process and creates an ".. elevated tone and civility that RCV rewards and recognition that voters can like more than one candidate." David Daly, Senior Fellow at Fiarvote.org
12 Cities in US Use 'Ranked-Choice Voting' | Newsmax.com
Oh does it? Then, can someone explain Cambridge Massachusetts and why for decades the city has only elected Democrats?
"... Fairvote is exploring how RCV might reduce legislative polarization by allowing space for moderate, conservative, liberal and other voters to elect candidates in proportion to their overall numbers in the electorate. Evidence in Cambridge Mass which uses multi winner RCV indicates that candidates and city councilors are not highly polarized there.."
https://www.fairvote.org/polarization_under_rcv_in_cambridge
You see it's all perfectly democratic as long as every one is on the winning side. I wonder how "proportional" the representation is in Cambridge for the handfull of Conservatives that live there? Fairvote contradicts itself on it's own website. It decries partisan hegemony and polarization then extolls the virtues of RCV in a city that has party hegemony!
"...If we truly want competitive choice, elections where the participation of all voters matters, we need to establish a national popular vote for president and some methods of proportional voting for legislative elections..." Paul Fidalgo 2007
https://www.fairvote.org/growing-polarization-the-roots-of-an-increasing-lack-of-competition-in-federal-elections
How does establishing a popular vote help the participation of voters? Every adult in Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana combined can vote Republican all they want and it won't make any difference because Democrat hegemony LA outnumbers them 10-1.
Talk about polarization!
And as Mill stated above the minority will always be represented by the minority never having any chance of a truly fair and proportional representation.
....And That Is The Diatribe....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)