National Popular Vote vs the Electoral College

The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The movement began with Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Gore won the popular vote while Bush won the Electoral College vote. This situation was repeated in Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump in 2016. The NPV movement then picked up steam -- and fury.

In 2016, Clinton won 13 States. Trump won the majority in 37 States. The Electoral College protected over 70% of the States from 13 big-population, high-welfare States deciding for 37 other states who the president would be. Not to mention California has 18.5 million registered voters. That's more than all the other west coast states plus Hawaii and Alaska, combined.

Do the math, then thank God our founding fathers had the genius and inspiration to create the Electoral College.

A look at the way we voted in 2016 (the map is very similar for all recent presidential elections) shows that only the counties with big cities and high-welfare enrollment voted Blue (Democrat). Virtually every other county voted Red (Republican). I see no reason why we should let the big cities of California and New York pick the president for the rest of us. The Electoral College is the only protection we have from such a disaster.

NPV would force my own State of Utah to go along with the national popular vote even if the majority of Utah voted against that candidate. That would mean 80% of Utah could vote for candidate A, but if candidate B got the national popular vote, then 20% of Utah would decide for the other 80% who we vote for. Is that a fair outcome?

Promoters of the NPV process to circumvent (yes, that is the correct term) the Constitution base their argument on democracy (government by majority vote). I must remind them that the US is NOT a democracy and never was. It is a republic (government by elected representatives) as are each of the 50 States. The Electoral College is a republican (representative) feature of the Constitution. Hence the opposition from those who want majority (ie mob) rule.
The authors and ratifiers of the Constitution clearly wanted the states to have a say in the operation of the central government in order to keep it under control. Two tools they put in it to protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual States to keep the central government under control were:
1 - State appointment of US senators and
2 - The Electoral College.

Unfortunately, "progressive" statists (the only things that progress under "progressivism" are government power and cost) were successful in eliminating state appointment of US Senators through the 17th Amendment in 1913. That, combined with the power to destroy that came through the 16th Amendment, has resulted in exponentially rising federal power, corruption, and cost.

Today's statists want to further neuter the States by circumventing the Electoral College. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the States are little more than functionaries of the central government. NPV would be the final nail in the coffin for states' rights and responsibilities. At that point, we might as well eliminate state boundaries and state governments altogether.

The tone of the effort to circumvent the Electoral College seems rather desperate. That alone is a good reason to reject it. The obvious fact that the effort is a direct response to Democrat losses is further reason for rejection.

If NPV is such a great idea, why don't its advocates simply work to have the Constitution amended to replace the Electoral College with popular vote? Instead of subterfuge, show us some courage and integrity for a change!

The Democrats seem to believe that the popular vote could never go Republican (or any other party). Advocates of this scheme need to ask themselves, "What could possibly go wrong?"

Universal background checks for firearm transfers

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) wants to criminalize every firearm transfer that isn't conducted in association with a federally-licensed gun dealer? That means:

1 - I can't gift a firearm to any of my relatives, whose background I already know, unless I pay a dealer to do the transfer.

2 - As a firearm instructor, I can't loan a firearm to a student for his/her training unless I pay a dealer to do the transfer.

3 - As a firearm instructor, I can't take possession of a student's firearm to help him/her clear a malfunction unless I pay a dealer to do the transfer.

4 - As a hunter, I can't pass my firearm to a fellow hunter while I cross a fence or other obstacle and he/she can't pass it back unless I pay a dealer to do the transfer.

According to the Supreme Court (Haynes v. United States), prohibited persons need not comply with laws that force them to violate their Fifth Amendment right to not testify against themselves (which is what the transfer document would do). Therefore, prohibited persons are exempt from Murphy's legislation.

As usual, advocates for "reasonable" gun control show that they have no capacity to reason.

Gun Confiscation

We often hear cries for gun confiscation. Somehow, it is is beloved, all the world's crime problems will thereby be resolved.

I say, do it!

However, surely rational being is aware that, to be effective, confiscation must include thorough, simultaneous, and repeated inspection (including metal detector and ground-penetrating radar sweeps) of every bank deposit box, barn, basement, bed, bedroom, bookcase, business, chair, closet, crawlspace, desert, doghouse, dwelling, file cabinet, fish bowl, flower bed, forest, garage, garden, heating/cooling duct, kitchen, lake, machine shop, museum, outhouse, person, pond, public building, river, safe, shed, sofa, stable, storage unit, stream, toilet tank, tree house, vehicle, and yard on Earth.

Not only must all firearms and ammunition be confiscated, but also all creativity, knowledge, materials, and tooling that can conceivably be used to fabricate firearms and ammunition.

This would require the perpetual deployment of several million armed government agents from the very same government that is known to let at least a quarter of prohibited items get through airport security screening.

Are you gun prohibitionists prepared to accept such inspection of your property?

(In reality, I doubt the prohibitionists really want total confiscation. They only want firearms confiscated from responsible Americans with political views that are different from their own. They could care less about the existence of Leftist- or criminal-owned guns.)

Dozens more innocent victims shot in a "gun-free" zone

Yesterday's Texas-church shooter was previously convicted of a crime that made him a "prohibited person" -- one who may not possess firearms or ammunition. Nevertheless, he passed the much-vaunted background check to buy a firearm. In other words, the government agents YOU rely on to do their jobs (background checks) to keep YOU safe failed to do their jobs.

Yesterday, he exploited government-agent ineptitude to commit at least 3 dozen more violent crimes in that house of worship.

As usual, the Left's response it to blame the people who didn't do it (NRA and Republicans) and to overrule ever more rights inherent to innocent, responsible Americans.

BTW, churches in Texas, by state statute, are gun free zones. How's THAT law working out? "Reasonable" gun control put 26 congregants in the unacceptable position of waiting the rest of their lives for someone with a gun to save them because they were arbitrarily prohibited from having an effective means to protect themselves.

BTW, the shooter was finally stopped by a responsibly armed citizen -- something the Left would ban. Unfortunately, the armed intervention was too late for the 26 dead and 20 injured.

We need smarter voters -- voters who are smart enough to understand that ever more laws and ever more reliance on government to fix everything is NOT the answer.

Caffeine at BYU?!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or the Mormons) has a health code known as The Word of Wisdom. It is found in Section 89 of the LDS publication known as the Doctrine and Covenants. One vers refers to "hot drinks", interpreted as coffee and tea.

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. -- Doctrine & Covenants, 89:9

The general consensus is that this restriction is due to the addictive component of these drinks: caffeine -- not necessarily the "hot" temperature itself.

The world is flooded with caffeinated soft drinks -- which are served cold -- not hot. A substantial portion of faithful members of the LDS church consume these soft drinks every day, usually several times per day. Some even confess (brag about) their addiction to caffeine.

The Church has never issued a formal statement that consumption of caffeinated soft drinks violate the Word of Wisdom. Consumers of caffeinated coffee and tea are considered not worthy to enter LDS temples. Consumers of caffeinated sodas are considered worthy. Dunno why there is a double standard or why many consider caffeine in soda to be okay, but caffeine in "hot drinks" is bad.

LDS owned and operated Brigham Young University (BYU) has long restricted the sale of caffeinated soft drinks on campus. In September, this restriction was lifted. No announcement was made as to whether the Church now deems consumption of addictive caffeine is good or whether the Church capitulated to pressure. A capitulation reminds me of the case where the Lord capitulated to Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, resulting in the loss of 116 pages of the Book of Mormon transcript. The Lord essentially said no, no, then, okay do what you want and see what happens.

I grew up in Utah, but military life had me living outside of Utah for 26 years. During those years outside Utah, I never saw a member of the LDS church with a caffeinated drink. On my return to "Zion" 17 years ago, I was shocked to see a large portion of my fellow "Saints" flaunting their consumption of caffeine. I've even seen caffeinated drinks purchased from the ward budget and served at church functions -- even youth activities!

How am I supposed to counsel my children, grand children, and the young men I work with in the Aaronic priesthood to avoid addictive substances when they see their parents and their priesthood leaders defiantly and proudlly consuming caffeine?

Sure, the church hasn't taken a formal stand on caffeinated sodas. But, should they have to? Consider this:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefor he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. -- D&C 58:25-26

As Dennis Miller says, "Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Firearms and mental health

Regarding how to prevent mass shootings, a friend and former coworker asked the following:

What I'm asking here is your take on Pollard who seems to have followed all the rules obtaining his weapons. Apparently his modifications were not obtained illegally. He was an educated man who held professional employment positions and reputedly was of some wealth. He was not a felon and lived in a gated community. By all external appearances he was a "good" guy up until he crossed the line. Until that time he might have shared your argument with some validity. But, then what happened? What happened to make a difference? This was the question I posed to you Blaine years ago. Now we have the reality of the what if my question back then. The inanimate object in the hands of the law abiding citizen until the moment he became a law breaker. What happened? What do we do now?

My answer:

We can't know much about what went on in his mind that led to the shooting because that mind didn't have a flight recorder. We do know that he was taking a psychotropic drug (Valium) to treat anxiety. Such drugs have known, dangerous side effects (confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior, unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger, thoughts of suicide or hurting oneself, hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, hostility, restlessness, irritability). Adverse symptoms can be precipitated or exaggerated upon withdrawal. (We give that crap to our children to drug them into factory-like uniformity.) It was reported on Thursday that his girlfriend said some of his behaviors were troubling.

I am opposed to denying a person of any rights solely because that person is under treatment for mental health issues unless due process of law is taken to ensure his/her rights are protected. A blanket, arbitrary denial of everyone who takes Valium would discourage those who need help from seeking/accepting help.

However, even mild mental illness should be sufficient notice to friends, family, coworkers, physicians, therapists, etc. to watch a bit more closely for signs of danger and to intervene before the illness is out of control. Adequate signs of imminent danger were manifest in every mass-shooting incident I know of. Nobody did anything to stop it.

We cannot ban objects simply because they might be abused by someone. Likewise, we cannot arbitrarily imprison anyone who hasn't committed a crime, but has the potential to do so. In both cases, we can and should take steps to eliminate risk. In the case of objects that can be abused, we offer/require training and limit use of those objects to persons who are competent (eg, driving a vehicle after reaching a certain age or driving sober). In the case of persons, we impose background checks and age limits for firearm purchases (which the Las Vegas shooter obviously passed) to identify persons with documented dangerous and irresponsible behaviors and we must watch those around us for incipient behavioral problems and get that person help while treatment is still easy. At some point, after due process of law, we sometimes need to lock people up for treatment until behavioral problems are resolved.

We are our brother's keeper. As airmen, we do that for our fellow crew-members when they deviate from established standards in the cockpit. We need to do that for family and friends in everyday life too. The Las Vegas (Aurora, Austin, Charleston, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Luby's Cafeteria, Pulse Night Club, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Umpqua, Virginia Tech, etc.) shooter needed that help, and didn't get it.

Another safety step I take is personal avoidance of gun-free zones -- places where only dangerous people have guns. The venue for Sunday night's concert and surrounding casinos are examples.

Caveat: Although I have a graduate degree in counseling, I am not a practicing or licensed mental health therapist nor am I an attorney. I don't pretend to be either on TV.

On Banning inanimate objects

The Las Vegas shooter is reported to have had several bump-fire stocks. The typical knee-jerk reaction is a call to do away with "bump" stocks. I suggest the best way to make bump-stocks go away is by working aggressively to have the unconstitutional federal firearm acts of 1927, 1934, 1938, 1968, 1972, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 1999, and 2008 (ya got enough government yet?) immediately rescinded. If we get that done, there will be absolutely no incentive for anyone to go to the bother to find the loopholes in those laws.

Now, even the NRA says it's willing to "talk" about "bump" stocks. The NRA seems unaware that the ATF, under the anti-gun Obama administration approved "bump" stocks. Regardless, I don't need a "bump" stock to bump-fire any semi-auto firearm. All the "bump" stock does is make bump-firing significantly safer.

The NRA says it's willing to compromise on a firearm safety device!

There is no room whatsoever for compromise on gun rights. We've already lost far too much. (Compromise with tyranny and evil always moves in the direction of tyranny and evil. Always.)

An attack on any segment of the responsible firearms community (including those who own/use "bump" stocks) is an attack on the entire firearms community -- even it that attack comes from within. (Anyone ever hear of Jim Zumbo?)

The NRA's leadership, of all people, should know that.

I am the NRA and I vote. I even vote in the elections to determine who will sit on the NRA Board of Directors. I will remember today's statement from the NRA the next time I vote therein.

The only effective way to implement gun control

Late on Sunday, October 1, 2017, a cowardly madman fired into a crowd of some 22,000 people at an open-air concert in Las Vegas. Dozens were killed, hundreds injured.

Naturally, the call for "reasonable" gun control immediately surfaced. (That call is a tacit admission that none of the 20,000+ gun-control laws already on the books are "reasonable" or effective.)

There is only one way to prevent this sort of tragedy: Simultaneous, instant, complete, 100% confiscation and destruction of all arms -- whether owned by civilians, police, military, or by gun-prohibitionists and their body guards.

Note that the US alone has hundreds of millions of civilian-owned arms (nearly all of which are used safely and responsibly).

How does one execute said confiscation?
• By simultaneously searching every inch of the world -- including in the closets, crawlspaces, and under the beds and carpets of gun prohibitionists.
• It'll require metal detector sweeps of yards, farm fields, and public lands to find any buried arms.
• We'll all (yes, even gun-prohibitionists and other children) be simultaneously marched through metal detectors and strip-search x-ray machines to find arms concealed on the body.
• Every barn, business, shed and vehicle will need to be searched (yes, even those possessed by gun prohibitionists).
• Children, spouses, cohabitants, coworkers, relatives, and neighbors will be required, maybe even bribed, to report any and all suspected possession of arms.
• All these searches will need to be repeated at least daily and forever to identify clandestine manufacture and acquisition of arms.
• Each and every piece of property must be searched simultaneously to catch the movement of arms from one location to another.
• Ironically, the necessarily massive force of searchers will be armed with hundreds of millions of firearms -- for their own safety, of course.

Total, instant, and simultaneous confiscation is the only way to disarm the people. I guarantee it will result in war. When it comes to intrusion on their own person and property, not even the most ardent gun-prohibitionist would tolerate what has to be done to satisfy their own goal.

If the Duchess of Chappaqua, the Indian princess from Massachusetts, the two senators from California, Space Man Mark Kelly, and the widow of Reagan's press secretary who took a head-shot shot in the gun-free zone known as Washington DC have a better plan for disarmament, I'd like to see it.

BTW, anyone who has ever smoked an illicit joint has no standing to call for prohibition of anything.

"While the desire to prevent atrocities like the one committed in Las Vegas is both understandable and good, it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on the best ways to prevent mass attacks when emotions, rather than facts, are the foundation for debate." —Sean Davis

Emotion is a terrible way to make law or policy.

Roots of [gun] violence

Violence (gun or otherwise) has several roots:

• Selfishness
• Mental illness
• A mass "news" media that chooses to profit more from stirring up anger, divisiveness, and hatred than from simply reporting the news
• Broken and dysfunctional families -- especially families with no father
• Gangs
• Devaluing life to the point where the daily slaughter of 3,000 unborn children is normal (almost always for the mere convenience of one or both parents)
• Shameless, calculated destruction of entities that attempt to teach good values (eg churches, Boy Scouts, families)
• Harmful drugs and the "war on drugs"
• Diagnosing children with ADHD, then drugging them into factory-like uniformity with drugs known to have violent behavior as a side effect
• Government schools that are better at indoctrination than education
• Politicians who prohibit/mandate things/activities they know nothing about
• Dependence on a welfare/police state combined with ironic disrespect for authority
• Rejection of God in individual lives, families, communities, schools, and the nation as a whole
• Etc.

All of those problems are tough to fix. Blaming an inanimate object and responsible persons who own such objects is easier -- the lazy coward's way out.

"While the desire to prevent atrocities like the one committed in Las Vegas is both understandable and good, it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on the best ways to prevent mass attacks when emotions, rather than facts, are the foundation for debate." —Sean Davis

Emotion is a terrible to make law or policy.

Most Americans are socialists, yet deny it

socialism - A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole (ie government).

Most of the socialists in the nation deny they believe in socialism, yet they want government to own or control everything of importance and to take care of them from cradle to grave. They seem to think that noting important can be done unless the person(s) doing it receive a government paycheck.

Examples of socialism in the US include:

Airports
Airport security
Ambulance service
Business loans
Business regulations
Convention centers
Education (K through pHd)
Disaster loans
Entertainment (Shakespeare Festival)
Exercise classes
Fire departments
Gyms
Health care (including Medicaid, Medicare, ObamaCare, PHS, and VA)
Health insurance
Highways and highway maintenance
Housing (subsidized housing, homeless shelters, etc.)
Libraries
Museums
Nutrition (SNAP, soup kitchens, WIC, etc.)
Occupational licensing
Parks (city, county, state, national)
Postal service
Recreation (utah Summer Games)
Retirement homes
Product safety
Sanitation services (trash collection, etc.)
Senior centers
Social Security
Student loans & grants
Swimming pools
Theaters
etc.

Are the above functions important? Absolutely! Do the persons providing those services really need to be drawing a government pay check? Or, can they be performed just as well, maybe better in the private sector (businesses, charities, trade associations, etc.) if government would simply get out of the way?

I don't think most people really know what socialism is.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." — Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." — Thomas Sowell

"Socialism is just another form of tyranny." — Walter E. Williams

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." — Claude-Frédéric Bastiat

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." — Norman Thomas, Socialist Party presidential candidate 1936-68, Cofounder of the American Civil Liberties Union

"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery." — Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." — Vladimir Lenin

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." — Alexis de Tocqueville

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." — Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister