An Explanation

There's been some strange news coming out of the state of Georgia lately. The latest is an allegation that Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) helped to plan the "January 6th Riot" that took place in the nation's capitol. As such, a group of election activists claims, she is ineligible to run for re-election to Congress (1).

Let's take a look on what the law says on this matter.

According to Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” (2).

Georgia state law explains further:

"Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering" (3).  

So what happens next? Again, I refer to the state law of Georgia.

"The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate's name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed" (3).

The decision of the Secretary, whatever it happens to be, may be appealed to the courts of the State of Georgia (4).  

More to come on this story; stay tuned.  

Facts and Figures: 2020 Presidential Election (or "Biden's Claim to Fame")

Joe Biden claims to have had 81 million votes in the election.  Is this mathematically possible?

Election Year	Candidate + Number of Popular Votes Won	Candidate + Number of Popular Votes Won	Total Popular Votes Cast
2012	Obama: 65.9 million	Romney: 60.9 million	126.8 million (approximately)
2016	Clinton: 65.9 million	Trump: 63 million	128.9 million (1, 2)

We see from the above table that a total of 255.7 million votes were cast across the previous two presidential elections (126.8 + 128.9 = 255.7).  

The average amount of votes cast per year for each of those two years is 127.9 million votes (255.7 / 2 = 127.85 = 127.9). 

Now, let’s look at the percentage of the popular vote that each election winner obtained. 

• Obama 2012: 51.1 percent

• Trump 2016: 46.1 percent (see note)

The sum of these two numbers, added together, is 97.2 percent. 

Knowing this, we can now find the average percentage of the popular vote won by each winner.  That number is 48.6 percent (97.2 / 2 = 48.6).

For our third step, let’s assume that both the number of votes cast and the percentage of votes won by the election winner stayed about the same from 2016 to 2020.  This would mean that 127.9 million votes were cast, and that Biden won about 48.6 percent of those votes. 

Doing the math, we find that 48.6 percent of the total votes cast (our 127.9 million) equals about 62.2 million votes (127.9 * .486 = 62.159 = 62.16 = 62.2). 

Thus:

Assuming my calculations are correct, Biden won about 62.2 million votes, which is a difference of 18.8 million votes from the 81 million claimed (81 - 62.2 = 18.8). 

Now let’s look again at the number of votes cast, which I have estimated to be 127.9 million votes.  According to my calculations, in order for Biden to have won 48.6 percent of that vote amount, about 166.7 million votes in total would’ve needed to have been cast (81 / .486 = 166.666 = 166.67 = 166.7).

That’s 38.8 million more votes needed to be cast than our estimate of actual votes cast.  

Percentage-wise, this works out to about 23.3 percent more votes needed to be cast  (127.9 / 166.7 = 0.7672 = 0.767 = 76.7 percent; 100 - 76.7 = 23.3). 

Anyways, here’s the bottom line in all of this.

Having done the necessary math in this case, we can conclude that Joe Biden’s claim to have received “eighty-one million votes” is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  Realistically, he could’ve only won about 62.2 million votes, assuming previous vote averages. 

Therefore, to borrow a quote from the web site “PolitiFact”, I rate this claim…

..."pants on fire"

!

Note: In 2016, Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton (46.1 percent to 48.2 percent, respectively), but won the electoral vote.

Somewhat Random Thoughts

Hold on to your hats, because it's time for another somewhat random rant or two.  

Campaign Notes

Yesterday, I happened to run into a Ned Lamont for Governor ad, this one placed on YouTube.  The spot claimed that the incumbent has "turned a multi-million dollar deficit into a surplus".  

Who does the governor think he's kidding? Right now, the state doesn't even have enough money to fix potholes on major streets, let alone fund other essential services.  

And economically speaking, our fiscal situation is downright ugly; did you know that combined, our economy ranks the worst out of all fifty states? Nationally, only Puerto Rico is in worse shape (and Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state).  

I know this is an election year, but I suggest that Governor Lamont should come clean on what's really happening.  People don't like to have to wade through mountains of spin, and have their intelligence insulted.  

On a personal note, as my brother would say, "I was born at night, but not last night"!

Free Speech - "Incident At Buffalo"

"Imagine, if you will"... (1)

...the setting of a college campus in the northeastern United States.  On this night, the school is a bustle of activity, as a noted conservative has come to campus to speak about race relations.  

At stage right, enter a mob of young "Black Lives Matter" activists.  They scream, yell, and generally make it very difficult for our speaker to be heard.  The speech ends somewhat peacefully, and our speaker engages in conversation with a group of campus conservatives (in this case, members of the school's "Young Americans for Freedom" chapter).  
 
That's when things start to turn ugly.  

The mob, having spotted a leader of the conservative group, begins to resort to violence.  Having found what they believe to be a viable target, they chase this young woman out of the speaking venue, and across campus.  

Fearing for her life, our protagonist takes shelter in a bathroom of one of the many campus buildings, hiding there until order is restored.  

It sounds like a movie script straight out of Hollywood, doesn't it? 

Shockingly, the events depicted actually happened last week at the University of Buffalo.  Therese Purcell, the chairwoman of Buffalo's "Young Americans for Freedom", was violently confronted by opposing protesters (2).  

Have a look:

 (3)

Check out that throng of people.  It isn't just a few protesters chasing Ms. Purcell, it's seemingly hundreds of them.  

Let's make something crystal clear; I am appalled at the actions of these students.  Through "higher education", they have been brainwashed to believe that violence is (at times) justified.  When did violent confrontation of people with dissenting opinions ever become acceptable, at least in a civilized society?

Now, here's the thing about this that really gets my gears going, so to speak. 
 
Yesterday, I posted the above video and story on my Facebook page, asking who among my more liberal friends would condemn the violent behavior.  So far, not one person among such friends has done so.  

You read that right; not one person (4).  

Honestly, I don't care which party you happen to support.  I don't care what your stances on some of the controversial issues are.  We all should be able to agree that violence against those who have done no wrong to you, and are simply attempting to engage in an exchange of ideas, has no place anywhere.

 

To not speak out, and not condemn an act of this nature, is to silently condone and support it.  And that is unquestionably wrong.  

Top Reasons to Vote Republican in Connecticut (State Races 2022)

In no particular order.  

• A rise in violent crime, spurred on by Democrat-supported "reforms". 

Thanks to Democrats' 2020 passage of the "Police Accountability Act", law enforcement in this state is handcuffed, so to speak (1).  They can no longer pursue fleeing suspects, nor can they use any reasonable and necessary force to end dangerous situations.  

It's almost like the late 1980s; every day, the news features a new shooting, break-in, or theft.  Yet Democrats have said that "we've done what we can" regarding violent crime (2). 

• Taxes, taxes, taxes!

Taxes are sky high, and seemingly on everything under the sun.  Not only do you have sales and income taxes, you also have property tax, corporate tax....and alcohol tax? You can't even get drunk without paying up the wazoo!

Also note that on Kiplinger's ranking of the states that are the least friendly regarding taxes, Connecticut comes in at number two (3).  Thank big government Democrats in Hartford for this; they've never seen a tax they didn't like.  

• Democrats don't care about the "little guy", only themselves.

Case in point.  

On March 10 2020, Governor Lamont declared that, concerning the COVID-19 virus, a Civil Preparedness and Public Health Emergency existed in Connecticut (4).

  
Schools were closed, businesses and homes put on lockdown, and draconian restrictions put on assemblies, even at houses of worship.  

Yet even as they were confronted with widespread public dissent and opposition, Democrats voted in lockstep to extend the "emergency" to the present day; not once, not twice, but SEVEN TIMES (5, 6).

Do you still think that Democrats in Hartford care about you, even just one little bit?

• "Free speech for me, but not for thee".  

Democrats in Connecticut have said vile and reprehensible things about their opponents, even comparing them to "Nazis" in some cases.  All this while they have launched an unprecedented assault on the free speech rights of anyone who dares dissent.  

Call former governor Dan Malloy a "snake"? You're banned from college campuses.  And if you question Governor Lamont concerning COVID-19? Your Twitter account gets reported and banned (no doubt on request of the governor's office itself), on charges of "harassment" (7).  

• It's embarrassing to admit you're from Connecticut.  

Democrats have controlled the governor's mansion for ten years now.  In that time, Connecticut has gone from being one of the most prosperous states in the country, to the butt of a bad joke ("which state is worst; California, New York, or Connecticut?")

"Connecticut? Why would anyone want to live in that state?"

• Democratic "Leadership"

Let's talk for a moment about the Democratic so-called "leaders" in this state.  

• Governor "King Ned" Lamont: A pathological liar and "benevolent dictator", who obviously fancies himself as being superior to everyone else.  


• US Senator Richard Blumenthal: "Da Nang Dick" is one of the biggest grandstanders and drama kings in the Senate.  Time after time, his antics (like walking out of a hearing on then-judge Brett Kavanaugh) have been embarrassing to the people of Connecticut (8).  And when it's time to vote, Blumenthal totally ignores the opinions of his constituents. 


• US Senator Chris Murphy: A complete and utter joke.  The senator lives in the District of Columbia, not Connecticut (as defined by state statute; see note) (9).  Nevertheless, and for some strange reason, he is allowed to "represent" the Nutmeg State.  As if this wasn't enough, Senator Murphy has admitted to committing an act of  treason against the United States (an unauthorized meeting with top Iranian officials in 2020) (10).  

Are these the type of "leaders" that you want to be making major decisions?

Connecticut needs a change.  The best way to effect that change is to vote Republican in 2021, across the board.  

"November is coming".  

Note: "Each citizen of the United States...who is a bona fide resident of the town to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector shall...be an elector.  For purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be a bona fide resident...if such person's dwelling unit is located within the geographic boundaries of such town (to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector)" 

- General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, Title 9, Chapter 143, Section 9-12a (11)