By Anthony J. Ciani

Many have dismissed election fraud based on claims that there is no fraud, that the amount is small and incapable of changing results, and that the amount required to change results would necessitate an easily discovered coordinated effort.  Three months ago, these same people claimed that President Trump would steal the election through fraud.  They produced nothing to back their assertions, but they could have made estimates to show the minimal capacity for fraud.  How much fraud could there be, and can it be corrected before the vote is certified?

If election officials are in on the fraud, as the news about Dominion and the exposed shenanigans imply, it could be so extreme that 90 of 100 people vote for Trump and 100 votes are certified for Biden.  There would be 90 angry people saying, “I voted for Trump,” but fraud committed by election officials is almost impossible to correct.  The FBI has election crimes branches in all of its offices, but as Richard Pilger lamented, had a 40-year-old policy of investigating fraudafter certification.  Attorney General William Barr recently changed that policy, but probably too little too late.

Corrupt elections are eventually audited, forensically investigated, and proven, and people go to jail.  I have heard dozens of retired Chicago employees brag about their role in frauding Kennedy into the presidency.  The subsequent indictment of 677 officials adds credibility to their claims.  Chicago saw 100,000 fraudulent votes fabricated in the 1982 Illinois elections, thanks again to corrupt election officials who went to jail.  Philadelphia, presently at the center of attention, also has its share of corrupt election officials.

Dominion’s systems could turn even honest election officials into unknowing fraudsters.  What kind of election software offers the ability to algorithmically alter votes as a feature?  It is a part of the auditing and testing system, but could easily be abused or misused.  And the Adjudication Module lets a “team” decide the voter’s intent.  We’re still at hanging chads?  What kind of election equipment company is named Dominion?

But what if the election officials were honest and Dominion free, and the fraud had to pass casual muster following proper procedure?

Impersonation

Walk sheets direct campaign workers to the homes of strong party supporters and regular voters, and contain the names, ages, phone numbers, addresses, party affiliations and voting histories of every registered voter.  This information is publicly accessible, available for purchase or obtained through campaigns.

Impersonation is one easy way to fraud.  I have heard a few stories from election judges who encountered impersonators.  Estimating a half hour to travel to a different polling place and vote, a fraudster could cast 24 votes on election day, with no need for fake ID.  Under the rules of many states, the fraudster walks in, proclaims their assumed name, scribbles and votes.  On the rare occasion that the signature is challenged, the fraudster bails.  Hitting 10 early voting locations every day, one fraudster might add another 300 to 400 undetectable votes.

Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved away and are likely still registered, and it accumulates, and it shows in the walk sheets.  The fraudsters cross-reference the voting history lists and moving lists.  There are plenty of stale voters, enough that over 3% of the vote could be fraudulent through impersonation at the polling place.  A crew of 10 fraudsters could cast 4,000 ballots in a single county.

Three counties of 10-person crews impersonating voters, and Biden wins Georgia and Wisconsin.  Apart from fraud, impersonation also exposes innocent people to potential prosecution for double-voting.

Double-voting

Voters can take the fraud into their own hands by casting mail-in or absentee ballots where they have previously lived.  Forensic audits reveal low amounts of it, maybe 1 in 4,000 votes, a few thousand across a large state.  Double-voting depends strongly on the ethics and motivations of the fraudster, tempered by fear of prosecution after being caught in routine audits.  With Trump, motivation was likely strong.

Mail fraud — Interception

The most vulnerable part of our election system is the mailed ballot.  The signed outer envelope has almost no security to protect the ballot inside, and there is no security to protect the envelope in its voyage.  There are many ways to commit fraud with mailed ballots.  Imagine a fraudster calling ahead with a message like, “Hi, this is Mike with the Lehigh County Republicans.  Don’t trust the Post Office with your ballot.  This Wednesday, we will be in your neighborhood between 1 and 3 to collect ballots and make sure they are counted.”  Ever the dutiful Republican, your 80-year-old mother fills out her ballot and Mike shows up at her door, just as promised.  Working with a driver, three minutes per stop, up to 20 or more ballots per hour, 160 per day, up to 6400 strong Republican ballots disposed of throughout the mail voting period.  A crew of amateurs did 900 in a week.

Mail fraud — Flipping

But instead of disposing of those Republican ballots, the envelopes can be steamed open and the ballots replaced with Democrat ballots.  Steaming and stuffing an envelope might take about five minutes, so add one more person and 100 ballots are flipped per day, 4000 flipped during mail voting.  A three-person crew eliminates 6400 Trump ballots and gives Biden 4000, a 10,400 ballot swing.  If the driver and collector put in some extra hours to steam ballots, all 6400 could be flipped to yield a 12,800 ballot swing, with just three people and a robocall.

Restoring the election

Apart from punishing corruption months or years later, when against corrupt officials there appears little to do.  Despite apparently losing the election, was Kennedy removed from office and Nixon sworn in?  There is hope for Trump, but the courts must act uncharacteristically aggressively toward election fraud, ordering forensic inspections and audits at even the appearance of fraud.

Impersonation and double-voting can be detected through auditing, but those ballots are mixed in the box, identical to the others.  Some states may have ways to filter them, assuming they are discovered before certification.

Intercepted ballots are gone.  Ten people vanish 50,000 Trump votes.  Biden wins.  Get over it.  Even if people report, “these guys pretended to be Republicans and took my ballot,” there is no replacement ballot.  Flipped ballots are likely unofficial copies and might be forensically detected, if a court orders it.  If Trump is only 40,000 votes down and there are 200,000 fake Biden ballots (from a crew of 48 people), catching a fifth of those would change the result.  Hopefully, where the election officials stayed open late behind closed doors to receive fake ballots, the courts will order a forensic inspection prior to certification. 

The Democrat and media assertions are bunk.  Fraud occurs on scales that easily change outcomes and involves conspiracies that are discovered.  In 2020, there are dozens of potentially corrupt jurisdictions that have acted suspiciously, and dozens of other unconfirmed allegations, and any one of them could significantly change the result.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/how_much_fraud_could_there_be.html

The whole insanity of pathologically exaggerated consideration for the “religion of peace”, whose believers like to see themselves as victims and take special rights for granted, whose refusal is promptly reinterpreted as “discrimination” or Islamophobia, was shown by a police operation in Mannheim yesterday – in response to a bomb threat against the Yavuz Sultan Selim Mosque in Mannheim.According to the radio station “Südwestrundfunk”, an anonymous threatening call was made to the largest mosque in Baden-Württemberg. The police, who were immediately called in, had the mosque cleared and cordoned off the surrounding area.But then came the best:the dog deployed to detect explosives first had to cover its paws before it could be let into the prayer room – so that it would not contaminate the ground.For such multicultural cautiousness, to which apparently at least as much importance was given here as to thwarting the threatened attack, there was immediate compliments from the leadership of the local mosque association: the police officers had reacted “extremely sensitively”; that the carpet to which the faithful were bowing was not “polluted” by the dog was “very culturally sensitive”One was ” deeply touched”.Apparently, the German police, increasingly obsessed with anti-racist confessions of guilt, were more afraid that a “Haram” explosive dog could hurt the feelings and sensitivities of Muslims (again) than they were before the bomb itself. By the way, it was a false alarm, so the deployment was unnecessary – but as an anecdote, where in the best Germany of all times the priorities of the authorities are defined, it is always a suitable one.If the Islamic communities based in Germany – especially the devout Muslims who have a socio-political agenda – could only show a small fraction of the cultural sensitivity for the traditions, values and customs of their German host country instead of constantly demanding privileges and consideration for themselves (while at the same time remaining silent on terror and religious violence in the name of Islam), a lot would be done.

journalistenwatch.com/2020/11/14/die-islamisierung-sprengstoffhund/

The Austrian government has presented a draft online hate speech law, the Communication Platforms Act, which, if passed, will limit free speech in the country. The Austrian government writes in the introduction to its proposed law:

“The main reason for the development of this draft Act is the worrying development that the Internet and social media, in addition to the advantages that these new technologies and communication channels provide, have also established a new form of violence, and hate on the Internet is increasing in the form of insults, humiliation, false information and even threats of violence and death. The attacks are predominantly based on racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and homophobic motives. A comprehensive strategy and a set of measures are required that range from prevention to sanctions. This strategy is based on the two pillars of platform responsibility and victim protection, with the present draft Act relating to ensuring platform responsibility”.

The proposed law is modelled on Germany’s much criticized NetzDG law, also known as the censorship law, which came into effect in January 2018 and requires social media companies to delete or block any online unlawful content within 24 hours or 7 days at the most, or face fines of up to 50 million euros. In May 2020, France adopted a similar law, known as the “Avia law“, also modelled on the German NetzDG law, which requires online platforms to remove reported “hateful content” — incitement to hatred, or discriminatory insult, on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability — within 24 hours. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 1.25 million euros or 4% of the platform’s global revenue.

Similarly, the Austrian law requires “obviously” unlawful content to be deleted within 24 hours and other unlawful content within seven days. Failure to do so could lead to fines of up to 10 million euros ($12 million). Platforms must provide a reporting function for such content and react immediately to notifications.

Just like Germany’s NetzDG law, the Austrian censorship law privatizes state censorship by requiring social media platforms to censor their users on behalf of the state. If the proposed law is passed, the freedom of speech of Austrians online will be subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities, such as Twitter, Google and Facebook.

With Austria’s draft online hate speech law, yet another European country is taking another step towards making online censorship an institutionalized feature of European hate speech laws. In Austria, according to Reuters, a surprising number of private associations would like to see even wider measures implemented: Austria’s association of digital service providers, ISPA, representing more than 200 companies including Google Austria and Facebook Germany welcomed the initiative against online hate speech but called for a joint European effort.

“Only a uniform European regulation can become a successful standard and assert itself worldwide,” ISPA said in a statement. “Uncoordinated individual courses don’t get us any further here.”

There has been, however, significant pushback against government censorship: In France, the Constitutional Council, a French court that examines legislation’s compatibility with the constitution, struck down multiple provisions of the “Avia law” in June because it infringed on freedom of expression. The Constitutional Council noted in its press release:

“[According] to Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789: ‘The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious human rights: any citizen can therefore speak, write, print freely, except to answer for the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by the law’. It is inferred from these provisions that with the present state of the means of communication and in view of the generalized development of online communication services to the public, as well as the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right implies the freedom to access and express yourself in these services…”

“Freedom of expression and communication is all the more precious since its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. It follows that the interference with the exercise of that freedom must be necessary… and proportionate to the objective pursued”.

The court found that multiple provisions of the “Avia law” infringed on freedom of expression because they were not “necessary or proportionate”.

“We too often make bad laws with good intentions. Online platforms should not censor the freedom of expression,” said Chairman of the Senate Law Commission Philippe Bas after the Constitutional Council’s decision.

It can only be hoped that European lawmakers eager to censor free speech online will heed the ruling of the French constitutional court.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16739/austria-hate-speech-law

The fear of a gang war between Chechen groups and Arab clans in Berlin is growing. The gangs from the Russian autonomous republic are apparently increasingly trying to challenge the influence of criminal clan members, for example in drug trafficking. According to the newspaper Berliner Zeitung, this was triggered by a violent clash in front of an open-late store in the street Wildenbruchstraße in the district of Neukölln.

Chechen henchmen are said to have attacked members of an Arab clan there on Saturday evening. According to insiders, they also stole drugs from them, which were intended for sale.Among other things, the attackers were armed with hammers. “We have been expecting such clashes between Arab groups and Chechens for some time, as the latter no longer want to be hired as mercenaries that work for the clans but want to profit from the crimes themselves,” said Benjamin Jendro of the Police Union (GdP) on Tuesday. “We are dealing here with people for whom violence and combat experience are part of their education and who have already been to war themselves in some cases”. The fact that the perpetrators are attacking a notorious extended Arab family practically in their own homes in the district of Neukölln shows that they have no scruples about taking the fight for lucrative business areas of organised crime to the streets.

According to investigators, a number of the thugs who were involved in the open-late store in Neukölln had been brought in from Magdeburg. This is because the Chechens are numerically at a disadvantage to the clan. That is why they are highly mobile and strongly networked to assist each other.

For this Tuesday evening, a so-called justice of the peace has invited both parties to a hearing. They met in a mosque in Neukölln. Clans try to solve their conflicts without the rule of law and keep the police out. Heads, mediators and so-called justices of the peace have established parallel justice for decades.”Against the background of their actions based on the extreme use of violence and deterrence and the strong desire to expand their influence in all directions, Chechen groups have noticeably expanded their influence here in recent years and have thus become increasingly influential,” states the Berlin State Office of Criminal Investigation in its situation picture of organised crime. According to the authors of the Situation Report, there are links between certain individuals from the Chechen scene and Islamist organisations.Chechens also formed part of the jihadist militia “Islamic State” and have been battle-hardened in several wars against Russia. They do not shy away from shootings on German streets either, for instance in March 2017, when a machine gun was fired at a café in the district of Gesundbrunnen.In August 2018 there was a large shoot-out in the street at the Chechen Cultural Centre in the district Märkisches Viertel. At least 20 shots were fired at each other. According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (LKA), the background to the dispute is likely to be the long-term rivalries between two Chechen gangs from the districts of Wedding and Hohenschönhausen.In Berlin, the shooting was the first open confrontation between Chechen gangs amongst themselves so far and, according to the authorities, shows “in addition to the absolute violence up to the willingness to kill, also the absolute disregard for persons not involved”.

berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/polizisten-warnen-vor-bandenkrieg-zwischen-tschetschenen-und-clans-li.117691?fbclid=IwAR3xF1CnhJg4waP40BcaFSgO2Ic03ZPTifl1DO4BYu6iDwe9eSs9NrAH0q0

Once again there has been a brutal act of violence in the downtown area of Chemnitz. According to the police, a 38-year-old man got into a verbal dispute with a larger group of people in the Stadthallenpark on Tuesday evening ( November 10) at around 7.05 pm.Suddenly he was pushed towards the stone stairs in the park, several attackers beat him and kicked him. A 21-year-old woman, who became aware of the incident and wanted to help the man, was also attacked with blows by the unscrupulous gang. As a result of the assault, the 38-year-old suffered serious injuries and had to be treated in hospital, while the 21-year-old was slightly injured.The police officers who were called to the scene were able to identify a total of 7 suspects in the context of the proximity search – they are between 14 and 47 years old and originate from Syria and Iraq, one suspect is from Romania. They are under investigation for grievous bodily harm, but have apparently not yet been arrested. The exact background to the crime is also still unclear.

chemnitz24.info/2020/11/gruppe-von-arabern-ueberfaellt-38-jaehrigen-im-chemnitzer-stadtzentrum-und-schlaegt-auf-junge-passantin-ein/?fbclid=IwAR0_WqpPCUc0UAz-faNfAYMjy4gUVVvAgVzI301gtQvmlY3s9fhvWSpoUVA

The recent terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in France and Austria should serve as a warning to Europeans who have long been appeasing and endorsing extremist Muslim politicians and organizations.

This warning was sounded in the past few weeks by a growing number of writers, political analysts and politicians in Arab and Islamic countries. The main message they are sending to the Europeans: Political Islam is a threat not only to non-Muslims, but to Muslims and Arabs as well. Europeans need to wake up and start confronting the Muslim extremists.

“Political Islam organizations are the reason for spreading hatred and terrorism in the world,” said Saudi writer Mohammed al-Sheikh.

“Political Islamic organizations are the reason for perpetuating terrorism and hatred. These organizations are banned in most of the Islamic countries, while Europe, especially Britain, embraces them and allows them to operate freely. Europeans can only blame themselves.”

Abdel Moneim Ibrahim, a prominent political analyst from Bahrain, wrote that France is paying the price for its “courtship” of political Islam.

“Is France really paying the price for its complacency and its lax security grip on the dozens of terrorist organizations operating under the cover of charitable or Islamic societies, Quran memorization or teaching the Arabic language, as well as scores of imams in French mosques who incite violence and hatred and sympathize with jihadist terrorist groups?

“This is true. France bears part of the responsibility for not closing these suspicious associations under the pretext of freedom of expression and freedom of religions…

“The French government knows very well that there are suspicious Islamic governments and organizations currently supporting terrorist acts in France. It knows very well that Turkey — specifically the government of [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan — and Qatar — are the ones that feed terrorism and support it with money from France and the rest of the European countries. Turkey and Qatar rely on suspicious associations supervised by the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

If France continues to flirt with political Islam, Ibrahim cautioned, “the innocent French will continue to pay a very high price.”

Palestinian political analyst Adli Sadeq pointed out that in many Western countries, the Muslim Brotherhood organization was still being treated as a “moderate political movement.”

Many countries, Sadeq said, have refused to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because they falsely consider it a “moderate” group. “It makes no sense to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is centrist and moderate,” he argued. “There is no difference between them and the jihadist groups.”

Tunisian newspaper editor and political analyst Alhashimi Nawiri called onWestern countries to re-evaluate their relations with Islamic organizations:

“It has become clear that these [Islamic] organizations, in their ideological depth, are fascist groups that have nothing to do with democratic values.

“The damage that the West has begun feeling is having a severe impact on the cohesion of its societies and states. This is the result of embracing and nurturing these [Islamic] political movements. The presence of these groups in Western countries has begun to cast a shadow over millions of Muslims living there and who are required (after each terrorist attack) to prove their innocence and clarify that Islam is innocent of these groups and their actions.”

Hailah al-Mashouh, a Saudi columnist and political analyst, also took France to task for its conciliatory policies toward Islamic organizations:

“There is no doubt that France’s previous policies, lenient with [Muslim] extremists, contributed to the current wave of terrorism, as well as legislation that guarantees the right to asylum and immigration to every expatriate on its soil.”

She advised the European Union to outlaw and criminalize all political Islamic groups, especially those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and said such a move would be an effective weapon to combat terrorism.

“There is no decisive solution to the [terrorist] attacks except by criminalizing and expelling extremist groups,” al-Mashouh emphasized. The Western countries, she added, should learn from the Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups, which were expelled from the two countries. Failure to expel these groups from France and other Western countries, she warned, will lead to more violence and bloodletting.

The Muslim World League, a pan-Islamic group whose declared goal is to clarify the true message of Islam by “advancing moderate values that promote peace, tolerance and love,” warned that political Islam is an extremist, dangerous and violent ideology.

“The ideas of political Islam are based on spreading hatred, interfering in the affairs of states and influencing their national cohesion, as well as inciting violence in it in order to pass its political agenda,” the group said in an apparent message to France, Austria and other Western countries and those who embrace and empower Muslim Brotherhood groups and figures. The group warned that Islamists have succeeded in implementing their political projects in non-Muslim countries under the umbrella of training mosque preachers and funding Islamic charities.

Several other prominent Arab and Muslim media personalities and political analysts advised the Europeans to be wary of the financial and political support the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups receive from Turkey, Iran and Qatar.

Faisal Abbas, editor-in-chief of Arab News, said that the “malicious hands” of Turkey are aiding the Muslim terrorists in Western countries.

“The misuse of religion to score points has always been the preferred method of these malicious regimes, and perhaps Iran is a professional in this field,” Abbas commented. “They are using religion for political gain and to stir hate and incitement. “We are living through difficult and dangerous times.”

Abbas’s warning about the role of Turkey, Iran and Qatar in financing and supporting Islamist groups and individuals in Western countries was shared by Tunisian writer Al-Habib al-Aswad, who wrote that “terrorism has turned into an industry run by Islamists aspiring to rule the world and who still think in the logic of Islamic conquests and infidels.”

Al-Aswad warned that Turkey and Qatar have been funding Islamist organizations, militias and media outlets in the West and said: “We are nearing a new wave of terrorism that could be more violent than the previous ones.”

We are now seeing a large number of Arabs and Muslims warning about the clear and present danger Islamism poses to many different societies. These individuals are demonstrating courage and conviction in taking this public stance. Their advice, that Western states must eradicate Islamist organizations in Europe, is vitally important. Further appeasement of terrorists will have a direct result: more beheadings and murders on the streets of European capitals and cities.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16734/westerners-appeasing-islamists