Category: COMMON SENSE

Violations of alleged political correctness detected by AI (bots) SHOULD NOT BE A PROSECUTABLE OFFENSE. As a matter of fact, absolutely no political correctness should be prosecutable, UNLESS IT OCCURS IN THE PRESENCE OF MINORS, and even then the real harm done needs to be justified.

However, there are some forms of obscene expression that have long been determined to be of harm to minors and those should be prosecuted. Yet today there are adults who would have others treat them as minors and carry censorship to the ridiculous ends of the earth, employing that censorship in AI bots.

I will judge Democrats EXPECTING THEM TO BEHAVE AS I DID WHEN JFK AND RFK WERE ASSASINATED. AS A THEN REPUBLICAN, I WOULD NEVER, NEVER BLAME THE VICTIM OR HIS PARTY AS BEING TO BLAME FOR THE VIOLENCE VISITED UPON THEM, AS JOE BIDEN HAS DONE IN BLAMING TRUMP FOR THE VIOLENCE AT HIS RALLY. JOE BIDEN IS A CLASSLESS POS.

This concept is introduced based upon the belief that there can be no confidence in an electronic election count system until each an every state provide what would be called the virtual precinct that provides an after-the-fact ability for the voter to validate his own counted ballot, in addition to providing a method for auditing the vote count within the voter’s precinct. So how would such a system work? First, we need to identify the two big concerns to the average voter.

Concern #1 is identifying exactly who is eligible to vote and what is the total count of eligible voters at the time of an election. Certainly a county government is able to identify its eligible voters by referring to a county’s property tax roles. But this only covers property owners. What about renters? It makes sense for a state government to obtain this information by referring to its DMV driver’s licenses, assuming there are no non-citizens allowed a drivers license. But what about those who do not own property or own a car, ie, the homeless, who may be citizens?

So we see there remains a problem in identifying all those who should be eligible to vote in any given election. One solution has been offered called VOTER ID. However, it does not solve the problem of ballots being issued to dead voters. To solve this problem, I suggest that to be eligible to vote in a general election, an eligible voter must have voted in the primary election within the same year of the general election. In this manner, one can be reasonably assured of an accurate total electorate count within a state. Of course, there may be deaths and resident transitions within the few months between the primary and general elections. But why should a state allow any new residents to vote immediately when they can vote in any subsequent elections. In implementing such requirements, one can expect that the count from the primary will not be any greater in the general election.

Concern #2 is what can only be called the opaque electronic count system. It is not sufficient for a vote count to not be publicly audited. Transparency is an absolute necessity to provide trust in the results. This can only be done by the state providing to the voter a virtual precinct.

================================================

 

How are records accessed within the database structure.  Let’s begin by examining  two possible versions, A & B. 

A.

In version A, you can see two different record-types represented by the two big boxes with rounded corners, ie, an upper external master header record-type connected to a lower detail voter-id record-type. The header record-type is a single master record & externally accessible given its voter-id = 0. It is the “head” or “master” or beginning of a sorted link chain. Via the line connection from this single master record to the lower level detail voter-id records, this master record 0 allows access to the entire list of other voter-id records sorted in voter-id number order. You should note that additionally each individual voter-id record is externally accessible given its unique voter-id number. This makes the lower level record a “hybrid master”. So every detail voter-id record is a naked hybrid master record as well, because there is no indicated master to detail record-type indicated below it. Regardless, it should be clear that any given detail voter-id record is also directly accessible given its unique voter-id number and indirectly accessible by going through the sorted list of voter-id records.

B.

Version B shows two connection lines that replace the single line in version A. This is two allow administrators at different levels to communicate, specifically between a more local election administrator & a more distant federal administrator who has access to citizenship records. The need for two link chains (as indicated by the two connecting lines) is to separate new voter-id requests initiated by a local administrator from those voter-ids that have already been validated by one of the 3 federal agencies.

“But”, you ask, “Why not use just one link chain between the two record-types & simply flag the voter-id record as new or approved?” Answer- Do you really want to go through Africa to get from LA to New York? I dont think so. Having two link chains expedites the feds job of identifying new voter-ids requiring their approval, where just one link chain would not queue them to look at specific records. In approving a voter-id record, all they need do is zero out the voter-id record’s new link field and plug in a new link in the approved link field. Furthermore, when an approved voter-id record becomes expired, it automatically goes back to the new voter-id chain from the approved voter-id chain.

 

 

In political jargon, people like to use the linear terminology of “far left” or “far right” to condemn the opposite side. They go so far as to label the opposite side as “radical extremists” or “dangerous cult”. They tend to see “communism” as “far left” verses “nazism” as “far right” How convenient for them…. and HOW STUPID.

Such thinking is myopic, unintelligent and nepharious. It is flat earth thinking that fails to see that in the end both directions eventually meet in an irrational mode of behavior and accusation, as if completing a full circle where one direction is indistiguishable from the other. In mathematics it is well known that, given a rational radius, there is at least one irrational point around the circumference of a circle. So it is with political directions.

The Biden Admin is doing everything it can to prevent Israel from accomplishing its task to wipe out Hamas. All in the name of protecting “innocent” Palestinian citizens. Well are those citizens really so innocent, since they freely elected Hamas to be their government?

One might argue that not all Palestinians voted for Hamas.
QUESTION: DID ANY OF THEM DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT HAMAS FROM MURDERING JEWS? It seems not. So it can be said they are complicit in the murder of jews, even though they had no part in it. Even Biden has said, “Silence is complicity”.

There are those who claim that by retaliating, Israel is a war criminal. That will not be determined until it is over. And if any such judgment of that is to occur, it must be within the same context as WWII in which Winston ChurchHill destroyed the French Navy after it had been acquired by Nazi Germany, killing hundreds of “innocent” French sailors. Is ChurchHill to be rendered a war criminal? I think not.

Certainly, those protesting and demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians DO BEAR RESPONSIBILTY FOR THE MURDER OF JEWS AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AS SUCH. But what about the silent Palestinian? Are they to be considered the same?

Unfortunately in war, it becomes a numbers game and the non-involved do become the victims of war. How many lives of non-combatants do you spare vs how many of your own do you spare. This becomes the over riding answer in war. Its called “colateral damage”, ie, unintended consequences.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves
“WHAT IS THE PRICE OF OUR NON INVOLVEMENT?” Do we want to become the unspoken victims of war, as in the movie SHENANDOAH, or a combatant?

What ever the answer, we should be sure there is in fact a war going on before making a choice. And to answer that question, all we need do is ask ourselves, “Am I safe walking down the street alone at night in my country?”

BOTTOM LINE IS
TO CLAIM NON INVOLVEMENT IS TO ACCEPT ANY CONSEQUENCES.

For those who do become involved, the overriding objective should be winning the peace, not just the war itself. There is no glory in war. But winning the peace does not mean you surrender your principles. Nor does it mean surrendering or betraying your country as Biden has done.

WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?

It is the right to rule. The question then becomes, “The right to rule what?”. The most obvious answer is “the right to rule over the land and those people within it”. Sovereignty deals with a physical area and those within it . It is the partitioning of a fixed area. It is implemented in the global realm by dividing the world up into nations with further division occurring based upon area. As a result, we see sovereignty being broken down into states, then counties, then houses, then rooms, then individual people. This is the top-down view. But is it correct?

In the beginning, sovereignty was seen as belonging solely to a ruler of all, ie, a dictator. But the fact is the very seed of sovereignty is the individual person, as evidenced by a collection of individuals overthrowing a corrupt ruler to claim for themselves sovereignty over their individual bodies, yet recognizing the need to relinquish some powers to a higher collection of individuals in the service of preserving the common culture in the neighboring resident area. So today we see sovereignty as issuing up from the individual to higher levels of organization.

This may seem contrary to those who see GOD as the ultimate authority. But if we see GOD as granting each individual a free will, then it can be argued that the individual has been given sovereignty by GOD, & it is ultimately from GOD via the individual that higher organizations get their sovereignty.

And now comes the zinger. Sovereignty not only implies the right to rule, but it implies the duty to protect the ruled. And should that duty be neglected, then the sovereignty that was granted the ruler is revocable.

Now I hear some saying “What about violent gangs? Are they sovereign?” Such gangs are usually run by a dominant bully in the protection of their turf and violating the sovereignty of others. They are no different than a dictator who claims sovereignty over a nation, making threats & breeding injustice.

PREMISE 1:

THE MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY INCLUSIVE THE GOVERNMENT, THE LESS POWER IT SHOULD HAVE.

In other words, sovereignty should not exist for global government. Sovereignty should remain at the lower levels getting stronger at each lower geographic level. Currently within the US, there are 4 levels of government based upon inclusiveness: local, state, federal & global. It is far too easy for any one of these levels to become corrupt, and the higher the level the greater danger there is of wide spread tyranny.

Of course, this view must be augmented by the level of government in possession of the nuclear bomb. But as time passes, we see the proliferation of this threat down to lower levels. And when a level of government fails in its agreed to responsibilities, the next level down must pick up the slack.

If a federal government fails to protect and secure the borders it has agreed upon, then it is up to the individual sovereign states to do so. This implies a necessity for redundancy in military organizations between state and federal levels, each subordinate to their respective level of government. By the same token, if a state government fails in its agreed upon duties, then it is up to the counties to do so.

PREMISE 2:

THE LAND HAS A VOTE:

It is obvious that the more populated a geographic area, the greater the people’s power to influence their immediate geographic government. But to what extent should it have the power to influence a higher level of government that includes geography beyond its bounds & occupies a different culture? This is the reason for the Electoral College and why popular vote alone to select a governor at the higher levels is unacceptable. It assures diversity of both lands and cultures.

Based upon the two factors in determining electorate power, it seems evident that the measure of electorate power should be equal to the citizen population of an area multiplied by the size of the area.

CURRENT GOVERNMENT NEGLIGENCE:

A “sanctuary” is a protective enclosure. But for who and for what. Cesspools are not sanctuaries. Cities, states snd nations are by definition sanctuaries for citizens. And if you really think about it, a car lane is a sanctuary. Stay in your lane Bro. There is no need to qualify them as “sanctuaries”.

YET TODAY, THE SAME LIBERAL FREAKS WHO QUALIFY CERTAIN CITIES AS BEING SANCTUARIES WOULD DESTROY THE VERY ENCLOSURES THAT PROVIDE PROTECTION. Who do they think they are kidding?

THE STUPIDITY OF DEI:

Most people understand the meaning of “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. But what is meant by “equity”?

“Equity” is most commonly used in real estate to identify ownership or title to a real property. It is primarily a way to identify how much of a real property is owned by a borrower as opposed to his lender(s), But we are now seeing the idea of ownership being wrongfully applied to our nation with broad and unjust consequences.

How did this come to be? In all likelihood liberal social justice freaks have confused the term “iniquity” which means “injustice” with the term “inequity” which means “unequal ownership”. To construe inequity as meaning iniquity is fundamentally wrong, lazy and possibly devious.

The key question in the abortion issue is “When does life begin?”. Given that most natural miscarriages occur within the first 3 months, it might stand to reason that life begins after 3 months. What might that mean? It might be construed to mean that the 3+ month old baby has the right of consent. That being the case, it would legally be murder for anyone to terminate the babys life without its consent. And that is where the state should come in.

Clearly, there is a difference between the legal definition of life (wherein the state has a duty to step in) and the religious definition of life (wherein the parents have a moral obligation to nurture).

So the question becomes, WHY CANT THESE STUPID PEOPLE MAKE A DECISION TO ABORT OR NOT WITHIN 3 MONTHS. THERE IS SIMPLY NO EXCUSE.