Category: Politics

Damn statistics

This NPR article notes that teenagers today suffer from an increased suicide rate:

Why Some Young People Fear Social Isolation More Than COVID-19

Others claim that suicide attempts have remained constant, and cite the use of a more lethal means – asphyxiation in particular – as the cause of increased suicides. But the NPR article quotes Psychologist Lisa Jacobs, who cites school shootings and climate change as potential causes for an increase in teen suicides:

Jacobs says many of her young patients complain older generations failed to address the young people’s fears — of school shootings and climate change, for example.

I disagree on this assessment. In fact, left-leaning political entities vying for young voters have gone to extreme efforts to stoke these particular fears. For instance, even though the odds of being killed in a school shooting on any given day has been calculated at 1 in 614 million (and dropping),  active shooter drills with simulated blood and fake gunfire are frequently used to prepare (pronounced “terrorize”) students. However, the goal is not to prepare students; instead it is to generate future votes for gun control. The unfortunate side effect is PTSD, possibly leading to higher suicide rates.

But casualties be damn; the ends justify the means, no?

 

The pot calling the kettle black?

A UN resolution on American abuse of human rights – drafted by Iran, Burkina Faso and the “State of Palestine”? Really?

Pompeo says UN Human Rights Council hits ‘new low’ with anti-US resolution on race, police

And yet many members of the the same UN human rights council back China’s crackdown on Hong Kong:

At UN Human Rights Council, 53 countries back China’s draconian Hong Kong crackdown

It seems that the UN Human Rights Council has become a support group for Human rights abusers who have nothing better to do than attack other countries who are much less abusive.  I guess it makes them feel better about themselves??

Who knows…

Section 230

Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (revised 1996) (aka: Section_230) has been largely responsible for the proliferation and success of Internet-based social networking sites. It has also been attacked by both liberals and conservatives. However, their complaints against the law differ greatly. Liberals want to use it to force service providers to increase their censoring of user content; conservatives want to use it to stop such censoring. I agree with the conservatives on this one; specifically that service providers should not be granted legal immunity for user content when they act to limit or restrict access to some content.

Continue reading “Section 230”

What’s good for the goose…

Have the Democrats forgotten that it was one of their own, Harry Reid, who used the “nuclear option” to eliminate the 60 vote requirement for federal judge appointments during their own attempt to stack the courts?

Senate Dems raise alarm on ‘captured’ federal courts as Trump, Republicans keep judicial confirmations coming

Without Harry Reid’s nuclear option, none of this would be possible.

Thanks, Harry.

Protect Nevada votes!

According to this Fox News story, Marc Elias – a prominent lawyer representing the Nevada Democratic Party – has allegedly threatened to sue the state if it does not allow ballot harvesting (potentially by political operatives) in the upcoming election. However, his argument in support of ballot harvesting is without merit and should be resisted.

From the Fox News article:

In his letter, Elias argued that “many Nevada voters will not be able to return their mail-in ballots themselves and do not have family members – or are separated from these family members because of social distancing – who can do so for them.”

Claiming that Nevada voters “…will not be able to return their mail-in ballots…” is false. They received the ballot, which means they can receive mail; this also means that they can send mail. They can simply put the outgoing ballot in their mailbox and set the outbound mail flag. This is done every day by normal Nevadans; it is not a difficult task.

We should also remember that mail-in ballots are being used to prevent person-to-person contact that can spread the covid-19 virus; sending political operatives to collect ballots would expose these same voters to unnecessary contact and negate the benefits of the mail-in process. Finally, we should not ignore the potential for fraud enabled by unknown people collecting ballots from those to whom they owe no allegiance. Read more about the pitfalls of ballot harvesting here.

The Fox News article noted above also alleges that this same lawyer is demanding that mail-in ballots be sent to all voters, including inactive voters:

Elias also demanded that Nevada “require mail-in ballots be sent to all registered voters in Nevada, not just those in an active status.” Elias asserted that state election law doesn’t distinguish between the two categories of voters.

While Nevada law may not distinguish between active and inactive voter registrations, the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act) does require states to maintain accurate voter databases and to remove some voters following specific procedures. If Nevada is maintaining a current database of registered voters pursuant to the NVRA, then only these current voters should be sent mail-in ballots. Sending mail-in ballots to those who are not confirmed as legally entitled to vote in Nevada will enable the potential for massive fraud – particularly when coupled with ballot harvesting by political operatives.

If you are a Nevada resident, call or write the Secretary of State (contact information below) to insist that they follow Nevada law and protect our voting system from fraud or abuse.

Contact information for the Nevada Secretary of State:

Barbara K. Cegavske, Secretary of State
Nevada State Capitol Building
101 North Carson Street, Suite 3
Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: 775-684-5708
FAX: 775-684-5725*
Email: sosmail@sos.nv.gov

Vote harvesting

Vote harvesting is the act of collecting mail-in or absentee voter ballots by a third party, who then drops them off at a voting or ballot collection center for counting.

California previously allowed only relatives and those living in the same household – someone who could verify the identity of the voter and thus the legitimacy of the vote – to collect and drop off ballots. This requirement minimally impacted voters and at least offered some protection against fraud. However, in 2016 Gov. Brown signed into law AB1921 which allowed third parties – including political entities – to “harvest” and submit completed mail-in ballots.

Some see California’s ballot harvesting provision as creating a potential for voter fraud because it allows for a disconnect between the voter, the harvester and the ballot box. Harvesters can collect anyone’s ballot without a regard for its legitimacy and submit it without concern of prosecution in the event that the ballot turns out to be fraudulent. What level of fraud is enabled by this disconnect? Think about it: what’s to stop the ballot collectors from requesting any other ballots received in error (We’ll take care of those for you…”) at the time they collect legitimate ballots? And what would stop them from completing them for the candidates of their own choice and submitting them along with the others?

If you think such a scenario this is unlikely, think again: A 2017 lawsuit by Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles county had a voter registration rate equal to 112% of the eligible voters in the county. What ever happened to those potential 1.5 million ballots? It should be noted that in the 2018 elections following California’s passing of AB1921 more than 250,000 ballots were returned by ballot harvesting entities. This dramatically altered the election results, giving Democrat candidates wins in districts where polls showed Republican candidates holding strong leads.

To protect the integrity of the election process, ballot harvesting should be allowed only by family members or residents of the same household. Additionally, the harvesters should have to certify under penalty of perjury that they collected the ballots from the actual voter identified on the ballot, and that the voter is personally known to them. This will have almost no impact on the ability of a voter to have their vote counted, while ensuring the integrity of our election system.

Tell your state voting officials that you support ballot harvesting, but only by those personally known to the voter and only when the harvester can/will certify to the same.