Posted tagged ‘Election fraud’

Roper’s Resolve: Critics Seek Dangerous Extensions Of Treason and Other Crimes To Prosecute The Trumps

July 21, 2017

Roper’s Resolve: Critics Seek Dangerous Extensions Of Treason and Other Crimes To Prosecute The Trumps, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, July 21, 2017

Trump has certainly become a diabolic figure for many (though his popularity among Republicans remains above 80 percent). This hatred has blinded many to the implications of pulling up the roots of our criminal laws “to get after the Donald.” In particular, they should consider the cost to free speech and the political process if they hand the government the power to criminalize some of this conduct.

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip President Erdogan this week pledged to “chop off the heads” of some of the thousands of Turks arrested as supporting the failed coup last year, including political opponents. That is precisely why the Framers, and later courts, have narrowly defined this crime and why relatively few treason cases have been brought and even fewer have succeeded in this country.

As satisfying as it may be to “get after the Donald” or his progeny, the engorged criminal code that would be left would then be handed to the next president. That president would then have a less obstructed range for the investigation of opponents and critics. If that day should come, we must ask ourselves how we will “stand upright in the wind that would blow.” As More noted, it is a question worth asking not for Trump’s sake, but for our own.


Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on how critics of Donald Trump have been calling for radical extensions or interpretations of criminal provisions against core figures. The implications for such interpretations of crimes like treason need to be considered by critics.

“So now you’d give the devil benefit of the law!” Those were the words of William Roper in one of the most riveting scenes from “A Man For All Seasons.

He was chastising his father-in-law, Sir Thomas More, for elevating the law above morality. Roper, who was himself a lawyer and member of Parliament, was the face of resolve — and relativism — in the law. When More asked if Roper would “cut a great road through the law to get after the devil,” Roper proudly declared that he would “cut down every law in England to do that.”

After the 50th anniversary of the classic movie, we seem to be living in the “Age of Roper” — and rage. There is a constant drumbeat in the news as experts declare prima facie cases for indictment and impeachment against President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner. Trump has been denounced as threatening free speech, the free press, and even the democratic process.

However, the push for criminal charges could well create the very dangers that critics associate with Trump. Few have considered the implications of broadening the scope of the criminal code and handing the government wider discretion in criminalizing speech and associations. Once you declare someone to be the devil, there is no cost too great to combat him or his spawn.

Trump has certainly become a diabolic figure for many (though his popularity among Republicans remains above 80 percent). This hatred has blinded many to the implications of pulling up the roots of our criminal laws “to get after the Donald.” In particular, they should consider the cost to free speech and the political process if they hand the government the power to criminalize some of this conduct.


In the chorus of criminal charges following the disclosure of the Russia meeting, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) was not to be outdone. Where others were arguing election fraud, Kaine declared that the case has moved to a potential treason charge. Likewise, Richard Painter, chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, has said that, while rarely charged without a declaration of war, “the dictionary definition” of treason and the “common understanding” is “a betrayal of one’s country, and in particular, the helping of a foreign adversary against one’s own country.”

Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman declared the emails to be “almost a smoking cannon” and added that “there’s almost no question this is treason.” Even if there is a reluctance to bring a direct treason charge, Painter insists that “we just use other statutes because most of what is treason would have violated another statute anyway.”

Article III of the Constitution defines this crime as consisting “only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” With neither a declaration of war nor an act of levying of war, such a charge is both absurd and dangerous. Many countries like China routinely charge communications with foreign organizations to be treason.

Indeed, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip President Erdogan this week pledged to “chop off the heads” of some of the thousands of Turks arrested as supporting the failed coup last year, including political opponents. That is precisely why the Framers, and later courts, have narrowly defined this crime and why relatively few treason cases have been brought and even fewer have succeeded in this country.


Some lawmakers, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have suggested that if the Russians were hacking or spying on the Democrats, Trump Jr. and others participated in the crime of espionage. Like treason, the effort to construe this meeting as espionage would rip the crime from its statutory roots. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. gave any sensitive information to Russian officials or sought to hurt U.S. national security. If this were espionage, a host of campaigns and citizens could be investigated as traitors or spies for using information from a foreign source.


Cornell Law School Vice Dean Jens David Ohlin has declared the Trump Jr. emails to be “a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.” However, the crime itself requires a showing that Trump Jr. sought to “conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States.”

MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler identified the crime as “conspiring with the U.S.’ sworn enemy to take over and subvert our democracy,” and declared it is now clear that “what Donald Trump Jr. is alleged to have done is a federal crime.” The suggestion that acquiring opposition research is an effort to “defraud” an election would, again, criminalize a host of political speech and associations.

It would allow the government to call campaigns into grand juries to answer for discussions of how they obtained information or who they consulted. We live in a global marketplace of ideas and exchanges. The line between information given as part of political speech and information given to defraud could vanish… with a great deal of our political discourse.


I have previously discussed how the firing of former FBI Director James Comey has prompted many to declare a prima facie case of obstruction. Like many others, Akerman declared the matter resolved, saying, “Our president is guilty of obstruction of justice for endeavoring to obstruct an FBI investigation.”

However, an obstruction charge is based on obstructing a grand jury or other pending proceeding. FBI investigations are not generally considered a pending proceeding and case law has rejected such claims. Moreover, it would allow the government to broaden the element of trying to “corruptly” influence to an extent never reached in any prior case.

Under such an ambiguous standard, prosecutors could charge people willy nilly for a host of interactions with witnesses or documents in the earliest stages of an investigation. Prosecutors could force pleas or testimony under constant threats of obstruction charges. That is why courts have narrowed the language of obstruction.

Election fraud

The same chilling results would occur if, as a host of experts have declared, the receiving information from any foreigner would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. The law makes it illegal to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation… of money or other thing of value” from a foreign national in connection with a federal election. Experts have declared the law as all but satisfied as a basis to charge Trump’s son.

Nick Akerman, a former Watergate assistant special prosecutor, declared, “It’s illegal campaign contributions. It would be conspiring to commit campaign violations.”   Likewise, Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel, has declared, “There is now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the law.”

Of course, no court has ever reached such a conclusion and hopefully would never do so. If the receipt of opposition research from a foreigner is now equivalent to receiving illegal campaign funds, the law would extend to foreign academics, public interest groups, nongovernment organizations, and journalists supplying information to a campaign.

An environmental group might have given Hillary Clinton’s campaign a dossier on Trump’s business practices. All of those interactions could be investigated and prosecuted — sweeping a wide array of political speech into the criminal code. If successful, these experts and advocates would hand the next administration the ability to harass and pursue political opponents and groups.

During the Obama administration, Democrats tossed aside the principles of separation of powers and supported President Obama’s use of unilateral authority to circumvent Congress. The Democrats acted as if Obama would be our last president in abandoning core constitutional principles. Trump is now enjoying the very unilateral powers that the Democrats so unwisely embraced.

Trump will not be our last president — just as Obama was not. These laws will be left to the next president to use in the same broad fashion against others. Democrats have simply replaced blind loyalty under Obama with blind rage under Trump.

In the movie scene with Roper, More cautions those who too willingly discard or twist laws to achieve desired ends, saying, “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

More shows the recklessness of Roper’s resolve — the dangerous tendency to make the law bend to your will in the name of a higher cause like Roper’s desire “to get after the devil.”

As satisfying as it may be to “get after the Donald” or his progeny, the engorged criminal code that would be left would then be handed to the next president. That president would then have a less obstructed range for the investigation of opponents and critics. If that day should come, we must ask ourselves how we will “stand upright in the wind that would blow.” As More noted, it is a question worth asking not for Trump’s sake, but for our own.

UK: Massive voter fraud in Muslim areas, no challenge because of “political correctness”

August 12, 2016

UK: Massive voter fraud in Muslim areas, no challenge because of “political correctness” Jihad Watch

(Obviously, nothing similar could ever happen in Obama’s America. Oh. wait . . . . — DM)

The more we continue our “over-sensitivity about ethnicity and religion,” the more our Western democracies will continue their descent into crime, human rights abuses, and the general anarchy that is entrenched in the Islamic regimes that Muslim migrants have escaped. Now, massive voter fraud is reported in Muslim areas in the UK, a prevalent phenomenon from “back home” under corrupted regimes.

The Daily Mail also reported that an ex-Cabinet minister, Sir Eric Pickles, lambasted the police, election watchdogs and town halls for ignoring evidence of electoral abuse, and he stated that “the intimidation of voters on religious grounds was so bad that police should be allowed to put cordons outside polling stations to protect frightened voters.”

Leftists and cowards keep denying the truth about Islamic supremacist intimidation in the West, Sharia incursions, migrant crime, deadly jihad attacks, and the like; and according to Hillary Clinton, Muslims have “nothing to do with terrorism.”

A key point to note in the article below:

In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.


First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values.”


Govt: Massive Voter Fraud In Muslim Areas, No Challenge Because Of ‘Political Correctness’”, by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, August 12, 2016:

Massive levels of electoral fraud have gone unchallenged as a result of “political correctness”, according to an official new report from the UK government.

The Telegraph reports that a new report commissioned by former Communities Secretary Sir Eric Pickles reveals that UK authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud in heavily populated Muslim areas.

According to the report, voter fraud is occurring “especially in communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background”, but concerns have been largely ignored due to “over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”.

The new information confirms reports repeatedly raised by Breitbart London. In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.

First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values”.

According to the Telegraph, the new report sees Sir Eric warning that “challenging issues” over community cohesion should not be an “excuse” for failing to “uphold the rule of law and protect British liberties”.

His recommendations include banning officials from using any other language than English to communicate with voters at polling stations, as well as calling for voter identification and police cordons around polling stations.

According to Sir Eric, who was removed as Communities Secretary in May 2015, a lack of action by police to tackle electoral fraud “sends a worrying signal that the police are soft on tackling and prosecuting electoral fraud, when faced with competing operational demands”.

He said: “We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections.”

And he specifically attacked “foreign languages” used to communicate with voters at polling stations.

The report highlights “abuses of postal voting” and “evidence” of “pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people”.

“There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported,” the report states, “and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of ‘politically correct’ over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”….

‘Rigged?’ 5 Ways the Election Is Under Attack

August 9, 2016

‘Rigged?’ 5 Ways the Election Is Under Attack, PJ MediaJ. Christian Adams, August 7, 2016


Donald Trump gaslighted the left when he suggested the upcoming elections may be “rigged.” The usual comic trove of Democrats posing as academics, journalists, and civil rights groups pounced on Trump. It’s a revived “Southern strategy” that tars “Democrats as cheaters,” wailed Rutgers professor Lorraine Minnite.

Democrats as cheaters? You mean Democrats like Wendy Rosen, Melowese Richardson, and Lessadolla Sowers?

Whether Trump was correct or not depends on the meaning of “rigged.” If “rigged” means a group of Democrats sit in central command and control the output of voting machines from outer space, then no, the election isn’t rigged.

But what Democrats are really doing is far more dangerous, far more diffuse, and far harder to fix than a conspiracy to control voting machines.

The integrity of our elections are suffering from a coordinated, multi-million dollar attack on multiple fronts. It’s far more complicated than one centralized high-powered conspiracy to “rig” the election. A more sophisticated understanding of what is happening is essential to combat the real threat to our elections.

Here are five ways that the integrity of elections are under attack:

  1. Big money organizations fight against election integrity

Large brick-and-mortar organizations with multi-million dollar endowments are fighting to undermine the integrity of American elections. These organizations, such as Project Vote, Demos, the ACLU, Advancement Project, and the League of Women Voters have vast financial resources. They have used these resources in key states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to attack election integrity measures. They bring attacks against Voter ID laws, but they also bring more important efforts, such as attacks against citizenship verification.

I’d wager that more votes are cast in American elections by ineligible aliens than by those impersonating voters.

Citizenship verification is essential. Naturally, groups like the NAACP and ACLU do absolutely nothing about alien voting, except whatever they can to ensure that barriers to illegal voting are struck down in court.

I am involved in litigation across the country to help election integrity. In one lawsuit in a swing state, we discovered that non-citizens were voting illegally in Presidential elections. This is both a federal and state felony. When we asked the election supervisor for records showing referral to law enforcement officials, none existed — because no referral was ever made. Never mind that dozens and dozens of aliens were participating in the election process in just one county. Imagine how many participate statewide. Yet nothing was done to prosecute the illegal voting — so word spreads through the community that illegal voting is a hobby that goes unpunished.


These same big money organizations send swarms of lawyers to the smallest court hearings, so many that sometimes there isn’t enough room for them in the courtroom.

For this, the left pounced.

In a hearing before United States District Judge Richard Leon, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and I were seated at defense counsel table because we were defending the federal agency. You read that right: We had to do so because the Justice Department lawyers sharing the table with us refused to do their job and defend a federal agency. They didn’t defend the agency because they ideologically disagreed with the actions of the agency.

On the other side of the room was a circus. About sixteen lawyers had arrived for the attacking plaintiffs. Some came from New York, some came from elsewhere. They were all there to stop citizenship verification, but there weren’t enough seats. Judge Leon noticed the circus, too. As Hans von Spakovsky has written:

The courtroom was so full that Judge Leon was obviously surprised by the size of the audience when he walked into the courtroom, calling it a “traveling roadshow.” In fact, the plaintiffs showed up with over a dozen lawyers. There were so many lawyers (even though only one lawyer was there to argue for the plaintiffs) that, before the hearing started, the clerk asked them to move from the plaintiffs’ table to the gallery.

Noncitizen voting helps the left win elections. Most of the groups in this traveling roadshow are 501(c)(3) charities.

I doubt very much that Lois Lerner’s Exempt Organizations Unit at the IRS has sent them a letter asking for their social media passwords or the text of prayers recited at meetings.

LynchFraudster Melowese Richardson celebrated


  1. A focus on process brings policy results

Republicans focus on policy. Democrats focus on process. Democrats and the left know if they alter the rules, they can win the elections. Better still, if they alter the rules and brand it a civil rights matter, they disguise their partisan goals with something that sounds better.

What do I mean by process?

Years ago, we all voted on Election Day. That made it harder for the machine to motivate the unmotivated on one single day. Now? the election is spread out over weeks of early voting.

We used to register to vote in advance. Now, instant registration is another process that helps the demographic that has difficulty planning ahead. It means you can register and vote at the same time, making it harder to verify eligibility.

In Ohio, you could register to vote and vote weeks in advance at the same time. When Ohio discovered that California and New York residents such as Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele were registering and voting simultaneously for Obama in 2008, Ohio changed the law to eliminate this “Golden Week.”  Naturally, the Big Money Organizations (See #1, above) sued.

Bush-appointed federal judge Michael Watson ruled that such a change violates the Voting Rights Act and struck down the election integrity measure.

Out-of-precinct voting, mandatory voter registration, felon voting, dirty voter rolls, underage registration, and simple refusal to enforce election integrity laws are process priorities of the left.

You don’t need someone sitting in a smoke-filled command bunker to rig an election. There are more subtle and more effective ways to affect elections.

  1. Big Law

The well funded organizations fighting to block election integrity laws are helped by some of the nation’s largest law firms — for free!

These law firms use the inflated fees their corporate clients pay to subsidize helping left-wing groups attack election integrity laws. A glance at the pleadings in the North Carolina Voter ID lawsuit gives you a sense of the aid. The opponents of Voter ID in North Carolina enjoyed free help from ten lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis: Thomas Yannucci, Daniel T. Donovan, Susan M. Davies, K. Winn Allen, Uzoma Nkwonta, Kim Knudson, Anne Dechter, Bridget O’Connor, Jodi Wu, and Kim Rancor.

kirkland and ellisPleading from N.C. Voter ID case

The attack on Voter ID isn’t the only instance where large law firms donate their free time to leftist organizations with multi-million dollar endowments. Nearly any time there is an attack on election integrity, Big Law helps.

And don’t think that state governments have the money and expertise to defend themselves. Some states, like North Carolina and South Carolina, did excellent jobs defending their laws. But consider what one federal judge said last week when striking down Voter ID in North Dakota. He even put it in boldface in his opinion:

It is important to note that with respect to the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, none of the affidavits, declarations, survey, studies, or data submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of their motion have been challenged or refuted by the State of North Dakota. (Italics mine; Bold, judge’s)

On the next page of the opinion where the judge discusses the flimsy evidence offered by the plaintiffs in North Dakota, the judge again notes in boldface at the end of his recitation:

The Defendant neither disputes nor challenges these findings.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R) did not give a statement regarding the ruling.

  1. Failure to maintain rolls

Millions of voter registrations are wrong or out of date. Hundreds of counties, including many in swing states, have more registrants than eligible people alive. That doesn’t mean millions of votes are being cast illegally — but corrupted rolls provide the perfect environment for election corruption. It’s what allowed Democratic Congressional nominee Wendy Rosen to vote twice for President Obama in both Maryland and Florida.

The guiltiest culprit for corrupted rolls is the Obama Justice Department. It refuses to do anything about the failure to keep rolls clean. Their failure to act is both deliberate and ideologically driven.

Anytime I give a speech on campus about this disgraceful inaction, someone brings up “prosecutorial discretion” in defense of the Obama administration. They claim that limited resources drive the decision to not enforce federal law requiring voter rolls to be clean.

That’s balderdash. The attorneys at the Public Interest Legal Foundation who are bringing litigation to enforce the law instead of the DOJ are carrying a heavier caseload than the dozens of lawyers at the DOJ Voting Section. Without active list maintenance keeping rolls clean, criminal elements can flourish. Inaction and ambivalence toward the obligation to enforce the law can affect an election just like an active attempt to rig an election can.

If Trump becomes president, sweeping away the lawlessness inside the Justice Department that turned the federal government into silent partners with election gangsters like Wendy Rosen should be a top priority.  t’s no accident that vote fraudsters across the country, including Melowese Richardson and others, get a free ride from this DOJ and never face criminal prosecution.

  1. Academics and media lying about election integrity

The final way our electoral system is endangered is through the pack of lies pushed by academics and the media. If you pay attention to legacy media, voter fraud doesn’t exist — only racists want election integrity, and Jim Crow is back.

When it comes to covering election integrity, some of the media are lazy, the rest are activists with by-lines.

Here’s some narrative they’ve invented:  Voter ID is a “solution in search of a problem”; voter fraud “isn’t widespread”; and election integrity laws “disproportionally affect communities of color.” There you have it: attack the motives of election integrity advocates and claim there’s not a problem. They never tell you what “widespread” means, so you’ll never satisfy their artificial threshold.

Partnering with activists in the media are academics. You’ve already been introduced to Lorraine Minneite in this column. From their perches at government-funded universities, they spend their time pumping out a narrative smokescreen for criminal behavior in American elections.  hey write books that are lucky to sell 2,000 copies, telling us that Jim Crow is back or that voter fraud is the stuff of unicorns and leprechauns. They probably sell far fewer units if you don’t countsales to their own students.

Are they helping criminals? Well, not directly, and of course they’d be highly offended at such a charge.  But help it does. Wendy Rosen and Melowese Richardson couldn’t do what they do best if it wasn’t for academics and the media telling us it’s no big deal.

Is the November election rigged? Certainly not in the way you might have thought it was. The election is afflicted with something far more dangerous than a single plot to flip the outcome. The affliction is diffuse, decentralized, and funded by millions of dollars.

Election Fraud Should Support Hillary’s Presidential Victory

August 2, 2016

Election Fraud Should Support Hillary’s Presidential Victory, The Daily Bell, August 2, 2016

(How do we make it stop? — DM)


Donald Trump: ‘I’m Afraid the Election Is Going to Be Rigged’ … Donald Trump on Monday night repeated his earlier assertion that the 2016 general election will be “rigged” against him …  “I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,” Mr. Trump said in the Fox News interview. “And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.” –Wall Street Journal

Trump’s vote-rigging concern, expressed in this Wall Street Journal article, above, is reported on without much commentary.

Report it and forget about it. And maybe people won’t notice. That’s the way the mainstream media tries to deal with these issues in order to support a Hillary victory.

Hillary’s upcoming victory, if it occurs, is part of a larger scenario of “directed history.”

Elite dominant social themes are circulated to ensure that a given outcome is justifiable. In this case, the themes center around Hillary’s lack of trustworthiness. This is something she “needs to overcome” in order to win the election.

The election won’t necessarily focus on policy anymore but on whether or not Hillary is regaining voter trust. Thus, this election is being cast as even more of a popularity contest than usual. The issues are secondary to personality.

Interestingly, the presence of Trump has furthered this electoral approach. If Trump hadn’t appeared as a candidate you could argue the Democrats would want to invent him. Or someone would have invented him.

The election is merely a kind of story-telling. We don’t believe these federal contests are decided on election day. It’s been a long time since an important American election was waged openly or honestly. We can see how this election is being positioned and re-positioned.

Just recently three “billionaires” endorsed Hillary: Warren Buffett, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Michael Bloomberg. At least Bloomberg’s support was solicited.

Questions were raised regarding Trump’s tax returns and “documented record of bankruptcies.” These show clearly how the election is revolving around “trust.”

Endorsements are one part of the “trust dialogue” taking place in this election. The next part is polls.

We’ve already written about how polls are being manipulated in Hillary’s favor HERE.The process continues. A recent Reuters poll reconfigured questions in such a way as to de-emphasize positive Trump responses.

Reuters tweaked the way it polled. HERE. Reuters added in the option of “neither” candidate, which diminished the pro-Trump response.

A new CNN/ORC poll gave Hillary a seven percent convention bounce and put her ahead of Trump.

But we checked the ORC methodology. Here’s what we found:

Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on July 29-31, 2016 … This sample includes 601 interviews among landline respondents and 402 interviews among cell phone responders,

Why would land-lines be predominant? Certainly it is possible that land-line  audience might be less affluent than cell-phone responders.

The make up of a given polling audience is extremely important and can influence a poll in numerous ways. In a previous article about polling HERE, we found that pollsters were trying to contact younger people who would skew Democratic.

After a point one concludes these polls are virtually worthless because they can be directed in so many ways.

Whatever narrative the mainstream wishes to portray can be buttressed by positioning poll results in particular ways via the audience approached.

If polls, endorsements and favorable media coverage doesn’t provide an appropriate direction, there is always outright election fraud.

HERE, from John Rappoport’s blog:

US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?  Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers …

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS …

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

Fractional voting software is embedded in voting results  but can reportedly be rendered invisible.

These methods provide the “directed history” that may lead to Hillary’s victory: skewed media coverage, calculated, solicited endorsements, manipulated polls and fraudulent voting.

Conclusion: The media, being part of the problem, will not provide significant coverage of these issues. As a result, while Hillary’s victory is not by any means ordained, it is certainly more likely than not.

A virus worse than Ebola is spreading across the world

October 26, 2014

A virus worse than Ebola is spreading across the world, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 26, 2014

It’s called “insanity” and becomes more virulent and more contagious daily.

Lunatic assylum

Lunatic asylum

Here’s a definition of insanity:

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns.

Although the definition references “abnormal mental or behavioral patterns” [emphasis added], the behaviors here involved have become increasingly “normal.” Multicultural linguistics are part, but only part, of the problem.

Insane responses to Iran nukes, terrorism support and human rights

As the P5+1 negotiations continue under Obama’s guidance, Iran appears increasingly likely to get or keep nukes. Iran knows Obama.

The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

And with the deadline quickly approaching on talks between the U.S. and Iran over its contested nuclear program, Younesi’s denigrating views of Obama could be a sign that the regime in Tehran has no intent of conceding to America’s demands.

. . . .

“Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.

. . . .

“We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently by other world leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff, such as Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Do enough of us, and of perhaps greater importance enough of our “leaders,” know Him as well as Iran does?

The P5+1 negotiations were a scam from the beginning and the scam continues, enhanced by perceived needs to work with the (Shiite) Islamic Republic of Iran to degrade the Sunni (but “non-Islamic”) Islamic State and otherwise to “degrade” terrorism.

The Iranian government is well known for its funding of terrorism. The U. S. Government has long been well aware of it.

The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2] US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”[1]

So is the Obama Administration.

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that “Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity” and that “Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.” The report states that Iran has continued to provide “lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians,” despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on “small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets.” The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. [Emphasis added.]

Iran hangings by crane

Iran is also remarkable for its failure to provide even minimal human rights. For example, it has been reported that Iran executed more than four hundred people during the first half of 2014. That’s more than two per day.

Despite Iran’s state anti-Semitism, the recent arrest of U.S. journalists, and the continued oppression of women, the Obama administration has been attempting a rapprochement with the Iranian regime. Fending off Iran hawks in Congress and the D.C. punditocracy, the administration has argued for a policy of constructive engagement, pursuing diplomacy over military action to halt Iran’s nuclear program. The execution of two gay men, while it may not be surprising, certainly doesn’t make that “engagement” any easier.

Iran’s cooperation also is seen as essential to managing the chaos in Iraq and the Islamic State. With U.S. airstrikes against the Sunni militants, on-off (now definitely off) support of Iraq’s Shiite (ex-) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the possible disintegration of Iraq, this cooperation—or at least not overt opposition—is surely of more strategic importance than the latest human rights abuse. [Emphasis added.]

The execution of Rayhaneh Jabbari is the most recent of such atrocities announced by Iran. Please see also Iran’s “Hanging Machine” to Execute Reyhaneh Jabbari and “Goodbye, Dear Mum”: Iran Executes Rayhaneh Jabbari — UPDATED.


Iran’s support for terrorism, abysmal violation of even the most basic human rights — and what these Iranian characteristics suggest that Iran is likely to do with its nukes — appear to be deemed of no importance by the P5+1 negotiators.

Domestic terrorism

Terrorism is often labeled “workplace violence,” a “traffic accident or just about anything but IslamicThis is from Jihad Watch:

A traffic incident in Jerusalem. Another traffic incident in Canada just a few days ago. Odd coincidence: both drivers were devout Muslims who killed Infidels “in the name of Allah” (as the Canadian bad driver put it). Meanwhile, also in Canada, a mentally ill man shoots up the Parliament building and murders a soldier. And in New York City, a man wielding a hatchet injures several police officers. Another odd coincidence: both the Canadian mentally ill man and the New York hatchet-wielder were also devout Muslims. The father of the former waged jihad in Libya, and the latter called for armed revolt in the U.S. But you must put all of these odd coincidences out of your mind right now. We know that none of this can have anything to do with Islam, and that greasy Islamophobes are the only ones who think otherwise.

“Memo from US Consulate refers to Jerusalem terror attack as ‘traffic incident,’” by Itamar Eichner, Ynet News, October 24, 2014 (thanks to Hamish):

Hours after a Palestinian terrorist drove his car into a crowd waiting at a light rail station in Jerusalem, the US consulate in the city issued a memo referring to the attack as a “traffic incident”.

A three-month-old baby was killed and seven other people were wounded when Abdel Rahman a-Shaludi drove his car across incoming traffic to strike the people waiting at the station. The baby girl, Chaya Zissel Braun, had American citizenship.

The memo was sent to employees of the American consulate, which is based in East Jerusalem. It asks staff to report “any emergency.”

AnneinPT (Israel) provides an actual Associated Press news headline about the “traffic accident.” “Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.”

Here’s how the AP, consistently with its customary reporting on things Israeli, might treat Palestinian rockets thwarted by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system: “Palestinian rockets damaged beyond repair by Israeli counter-measures.”

Lone wolf” Islamic terrorists are exceedingly rare.

[N]umerous examples show that terrorist actors are almost always part of a network who were involved in recruiting and tasking terrorist activity. As Max Abrahms at Northeastern University has observed:

Since the advent of international terrorism in 1970, none of the 40 most lethal terrorist attacks has been committed by a person unaffiliated with some terrorist group, according to publicly available data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is funded by the Department of Homeland Security and stored at the University of Maryland. In fact, lone wolves have carried out just two of the 1,900 most deadly terrorist incidents over the last four decades.

So why “lone wolf”? Simply, it was a mechanism promulgated by the CVE [countering violent extremism] industry, with willing cooperation from law enforcement and intelligence officials, to exonerate themselves when a terrorist attack happened. At its core is terror agnosticism: “There is possibly no way to predict who will turn to terrorism, so therefore we can’t be held responsible when it happens. Oh, and give us more money so we can better improve how we won’t be able to predict terror attacks.” [Insert added.]

It’s Islamic terrorism all the way down:

Yet there has been great reluctance to associate terrorist attacks with the “religion of peace.” Here are examples of media and official reactions to the recent terrorist attacks in Canada: “CBC’s Derek Stoffel tweeted: ‘Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.’” However,

Stoffel should have known that in late September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict.

“The hard-Left Vox reacted to the revelation that Zehaf-Bibeau was a Muslim by dismissing the fact as irrelevant.”

Not to be outdone in multicultural empathy,

In the wake of the shootings in Ottawa, the police chiefs of Toronto and Ottawa wrote to local Muslim leaders, assuring them of their good will and urging Muslims to contact them in case of a “backlash.” These politically correct cops appear to have learned their lesson well: after every jihad attack, Muslims are the victims, and need special reassurances.

Eventually, the Canadian terrorist attacks were labeled “terrorism.” Even the White House called them “despicable terrorist attacks,” without mentioning the words “Islam” or “Islamist.”


Finally, NY hatchet attack was terror according to police commissioner. But again, not Islamist terrorism.

Voting fraud

In 2008 we the people elected Obama as “our” President. We did it again in 2012. He was viewed by many as the one for whom they had been waiting.

Obama Banard College REV

He was seen as the “God of all things.”


Fortunately, some seem to be recovering from their dementia.

tatoo removal

However, all too many are still infected with insanity and continue to be contagious. Here’s a video of James O’Keefe talking with college students about vote fraud:

Vote fraud is apparently good when done for a “good” purpose.

When Obama spoke about Democrats running for reelection appearing to desert but really supporting him, he said

“So this isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn out.'” [Emphasis added.]

He may not have intended to encourage voter fraud, but “you do what you need to win” may well have been taken seriously by Obamabots. It has, as a minimum, an unpleasant odor.

According to a Washington Post study, non-citizens could decide the vote in November 2014.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

. . . .

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted. [Emphasis added.]


According to Watchdog Org,

With early voting starting Thursday, North Carolina’s election board found 154 ineligible voters on its poll lists — and officials are examining thousands more questionable registrations.

The illegal immigrants landed on the state’s voter rolls, courtesy of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The State Board of Elections said late Tuesday that more than 9,000 additional voters’ names are being checked for legal status. They do not expect to finish checking before early voting starts Thursday.

It’s necessary for Republicans to win outside the “margin of fraud,” and there have already been signs of voter fraud. In Arizona,

A Republican party official in the largest county in Arizona says surveillance tape shows a progressive Hispanic activist blatantly and openly engaging in vote fraud.

. . . .

Between 12:54 and 1:04, LaFaro said, he observed a man wearing a “Citizens for a Better Arizona” T-shirt loudly drop a box containing hundreds of early-voting ballots on a table.

Citizens for a Better Arizona is a progressive group.

The man then began “stuffing the ballot box,” LaFaro said. “I watched in amazement.”

In Chicago, Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan’s votes for Republican candidates, including for himself, were registered as having been cast for Democrats. He noticed the problem before pulling the ultimate lever and it was determined that the machine had been “improperly calibrated.” There is no indication in the linked article whether other machines were also “improperly calibrated” or whether any of them were examined to find out. Obviously, voters need to check for whom the machines say they have voted before pulling the lever. How many will bother to do so?

Since voter fraud may be insufficient, President Obama has diligently prevented voters from understanding what He intends to do about immigration soon after the election. Jonathan Turley, Esq., a “liberal” in the old fashioned sense rather than a leftist, wrote this about Obama’s refusal to disclose or even discuss His post-election plans for immigration “reform.”

[Y]esterday [October 23d] White House CBS reporter Major Garrett broke from the mainstream pack and pressed White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on a report that the Administration has order material for a “surge” of immigration IDs of up to 9 million in one year. Ernest called the questions “crazy” and encouraged everyone not to speculate . . . before the election obviously. [Emphasis added.]

[T]his Administration is openly withholding any information in its plans for unilateral presidential action despite the President’s pledge to take action after the election and before the New Year — only a matter of weeks. It is a cynical decision to prevent voters from being fully informed of the plans in a major policy area. Regardless of how one feels about immigration policies, it should be condemned by people across the political spectrum. [Emphasis added.]

More importantly, the media has to show some independence from the White House in this and other stories. Garrett is one of the few such reporters to press the point. His extraordinary exchange however was not covered by the mainstream press and, once again, the stonewalling on the issue was again dropped. I expect given the record of the White House corp, such questioning from Garrett does seem “crazy.” After all, disclosure of such plans might harm the White House in the upcoming election and only a “crazy” reporter would pursue such a story. [Emphasis added.]

Get your excuses for not voting prepared if you like the status quo:

If you don’t like the status quo, vote and remind your friends to do so as well.


From the P5+1 negotiations with Iran and the failure of our “leaders” even to pause on their path to Iranian nukes due to Iran’s abysmal human rights record, its support for terrorism and the dangers Iran already poses for what’s left of the free and democratic world — and will pose in even greater measure with nukes — to rampant antisemitism to Islamic attacks on and persecution of Christians qua Christians, to domestic Islamic terrorism to voting fraud, far too many are either insane or extraordinarily devious. Those who appear to be insane either do not recognize the nature of our enemies or do not care. Some are perhaps complicit.

As this insidious form of insanity spreads we seem to have no antidote more powerful than reason and common sense, both increasingly rare. Will our enemies have to provide a more effective antidote in the form of an attack on the United States so severe, clear and obvious that insanity can no longer be ignored even by our lunatics?