an Uncensored Mind – Page 45 – Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.

And this is why…

…our high school students do so poorly on international standardized tests. Instead of pulling people up to the bar, we just lower it:

San Diego school districts overhauls grading system to combat racism

Court packing? See Venezuela…

When court packing goes wrong: Venezuela and other Latin American countries offer sobering reality

Fraud? What fraud?

If you can’t look for vote fraud, then how can you say there is none?

California’s AG and SoS have noted that state rules require ballot harvesters to sign the envelop of ballots they collect – without ever registering with the state or providing a “signature card” for verification. How, then, do they expect to be able to confirm the collector of a ballot? But wait – it gets worse. It seems that the rule can be ignored with impunity. The following is from a recent article on NPR:

Padilla and Becerra reiterated that while ballot collection is allowed, state rules require that whoever assists with delivering a ballot sign the envelope to record a chain of custody. But they also said ballots without that signature would not be rejected either.

Really? So the rule simply doesn’t matter, and will not enforced? Isn’t it the AG’s function to support and enforce the laws of the state? How do they expect to detect or follow up on possible election fraud if the rules are simply ignored?

I’ve said it before but apparently it needs to be said again: If you have no means to detect fraud, then it’s easy to say there is none. Unfortunately (for the American voter, anyway), the claim will carry no weight.

You’d think they’d have learned…

… after the CNN/Donna Brazile fiasco regarding the 2016 presidential debates:

Debate moderator Steve Scully raises eyebrows with tweet asking Scaramucci ‘should I respond to Trump’

Steve Scully believes Scaramucci tweet was result of a hack, ‘authorities’ investigating, C-SPAN says

C-SPAN suspends Steve Scully indefinitely after he admits he lied about his Twitter being hacked

The most interesting point regarding this story? I found NOT A PEEP of Steve Scully and this Twitter fiasco in a search of the NPR web site (searched for Steve Scully, and also just Scully, on the NPR web site and received no relevant hits).

No bias in the news? Really? Yeah, that’s what I think, too.

Freedom of hearing?

Freedom of speech is an integral part of our national DNA, and is enshrined in the 1st amendment of the Constitution. But what use is your right to speak if no one is allowed to listen? Is the 1st amendment being circumvented by social media companies, working on behalf of specific candidates, to limit your ability to hear certain voices?

Both Facebook and Twitter are alleged to have reduced access to or restricting the linking and tweeting of a New York Post article on emails purported to involve Hunter Biden and his work related to the Ukrainian oil giant Burisma. The emails cited by the NYP article allegedly link Joe Biden to his son’s work, and suggest that Hunter had arranged a meeting between Joe Biden and an adviser to the board of Burisma. The emails appear to contradict previous statements by Biden and his campaign.

Facebook claims that they are “…reducing its distribution…” to prevent dissemination of the article on their platform while they fact-check, but it is unknown how often they have restricted access to stories by other national publications for fact-checking. Taking such an action near an election – in particular when the action appears to benefit a particular candidate – raises concerns of favoritism and free speech.

Twitter claims instead that the story violates their “hacked materials” policy, although it is unclear if they took the same action for stories regarding Trump’s non-public tax returns (which many would consider “hacked” material). In addition it might be argued that the laptop which was the source of the emails had been abandoned, giving the repair shop in possession of the laptop the legal right to it and its contents (any lawyers out there, please feel free to jump in and comment on this…).

The decision as to the veracity of a story published in a newspaper of significant distribution – particularly one that is subject to libel charges if the story is incorrect (unlike Facebook) – should be left to the reader. Facebook and Twitter were wrong to prevent people from making their own decision as to the truth behind a nationally-published story. Blocking access to the story – even if it turns out to be false – implies that Facebook and Twitter believe their members are simply too stupid to tell fact from fiction. But the question remains: Are the actions of Facebook and Twitter violations of the 1st amendment?

In the strictest sense no, since the 1st amendment only applies to the government; private entities can do as they wish. But what if these private companies are acting on the behalf of candidates in the belief that they will be rewarded or protected if these candidates achieve or maintain their office? Isn’t this in a sense work for or on behalf of a future government, and as such would this be a violation of the first amendment? I’ll have to wait for the legal scholars to weight in, but it is a question worth asking.

In addition, these social media companies are restricting the right to be heard – not the right to speak. But what if they are synonymous? Wouldn’t it serve the same purpose? With social media platforms becoming the de facto means of speech, are restrictions placed on content – effectively determining whether or not speech can be heard – the same as a restriction on speech? Note that this would be considered a 1st amendment issue only if we believe that the social media platforms are working on the behalf of the (future or present) government, but once again it is a question worth asking.

As a side note, the protections under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act need to be revisited with respect to their application to social media companies. If social media companies feel that it is within their purview to control what can be posted on their sites then they are acting in the role of an editor or publisher rather than simply a speech platform. As a result they should not be allowed the immunities provided by Section 230.

Hypocrisy

So it’s OK for felons and political operatives to personally gather up (“harvest”) ballots – without any requirement that the harvesters identify themselves in any way to the ballot holder or the registrar’s office, and without any accounting whatsoever with regards to how many they’ve collected or submitted – but god forbid that someone from the opposition collects them via centrally-located drop-boxes:

California Officials Tell State GOP To Stop Distributing Ballot Drop Boxes

The chain of custody is broken either way; how is a drop box any different than an unknown (or perhaps partizan) political operative collecting your ballot? I find it difficult to believe that this would be illegal under California’s election laws, which allow ballot harvesting without any specific restrictions on the method used.

I wonder if they’d be as upset if it were the Democrats instead of the GOP using drop boxes? Frankly, I think they’re just mad that they didn’t think of it first…

Ricochet

It’s funny when a rule or law backfires on those who created it. Like when Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to force through Obama’s court appointments, an action that has cascaded into an upcoming 3rd Supreme Court appointment for Trump. And here we go again, as California realizes that two can play the “ballot harvesting” game…

Why CA Dems Suddenly Take Issue with Ballot Harvesting

Insanity

Can someone please explain to me how prisoners have been affected financially by the COVID-19 pandemic, and why they should qualify for stimulus payments?

California judge rules inmates owed $1,200 stimulus payments

No evidence of fraud??

“No evidence” of fraud with mail-in voting? What the hell do you think this is? Just ballot-harvesters trying to be helpful??

California election officials probing unauthorized ballot drop-off boxes popping up across state

Note that vote harvesting is legal in California – and there is no requirement that you hand your ballot to a person. Gathering ballots via centrally-located collection boxes could thus be considered “legal”; the only question then would be whether or not the markings on the collection box were meant to deceive. If marked as follows:

Official Ballot Drop Box

then the perpetrators could claim in court that the word “official” referred to the ballot, not the box, and be off scot-free!

In any event, it’s the loss in “chain of custody” caused by ballot harvesting that will be the source of fraud in this election cycle. What’s to prevent ballot harvesters from selectively disposing of ballots sourced from neighborhoods or zip codes that might not agree with their political leanings? And with many states – like California and Nevada – not requiring that ballot harvesters identify themselves to the voter or the registrar, there is no way to catch them if they did (or even identify if such selective grooming of ballots occurred).

This brings me to the media, which continues to claim that there is no evidence of mail-in voter fraud. However, they are only looking at established mail-in vote programs that – unlike the newly-minted mail-in vote systems created for this election – have many established safeguards built-in. For instance, Washington State has an online system where you can verify that your vote counted, and was counted as you actually voted. Where is this capability in the California (or Nevada) mail in voting systems? I guess it’s easy to claim there is no fraud in the system when you make it impossible to identify if it has occurred….!

Additionally, the media has continued to ignore possible evidence of vote fraud. For instance, a left-leaning radio station recently discussed the security of the Washington State mail-in vote system, using it as an example to show that no fraud exists. However, they conveniently ignored that the Washington governor stated in a past radio interview that she had suspected fraud in Yakima county due to possible ballot harvesting related issues. No fraud? Even the well-established Washington State mail-in vote system is subject to those who would corrupt our elections. How do you think the last-minute mail-in voting systems pushed through for this election cycle will fair against such forces?

Yeah, that’s what I think, too.