I have a request of those of you who think nothing untoward happened in the election of November 3^rd, who are fine with it, who don’t see any need to revisit any of it, either the events leading up to it or those of the aftermath when votes were being counted. In your view, the election took place the way elections should take place. There is nothing to inquire into, there is not even any need for improvement. As erstwhile head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Chris Krebs put it, “The November 3^rd election was the most secure in American history.”

Now then, if that is what you believe, would you mind setting my mind at ease with regard to a few points? There are things about this election that bother me. I have taken the time to list some of them, and would love to have someone respond and help me understand why my suspicions are unfounded. Because as it stands now, I no longer have any confidence either in this election or any future one; indeed, I have none in American democracy altogether. As it stands now, I see the US as the laughingstock of the Western world, conducting elections in a way which would make other advanced countries gasp, preaching about election integrity to developing countries while trampling it under foot at home. So it would be great if you could ease my mind.

Can you do me that favor? Thanks in advance.

What is the purpose of eliminating voter identification requirements?

It comes as a shock to my Dutch friends when I tell them, but in various states in the US, no identification is required to vote. Supposedly this has been done to combat racism. Somehow, the requirement of identifying yourself by means of form of photo identification is racist. But the US is the only country I know of that relaxes this requirement (here is a short article on the subject). Here in the Netherlands, where I currently reside, voter photo identification is required. Is the Netherlands racist? By the same token, if racism is a bogus reason, what possible purpose could this relaxation serve?

Why introduce mass mail-in balloting?

The rationale for this innovation is the corona virus pandemic. By turning to mass mail-in voting, people would be protected from infection, which is a risk they would run if they showed up physically at the polls to vote.

The problem is, mail-in voting is highly susceptible to fraud, which is why most countries ban it altogether, or restrict it to absentee balloting for citizens who are out of country. The paradigm case is Corsica in 1975, when voter fraud took place on a wide scale, taking advantage of a mail-in voting system. Corsica is a part of France; France thereupon outlawed mail-in voting. More details can be found here.

The problems arising from the corona virus can be (and were) met by extended voting periods, whereby people are given the opportunity to vote on whatever day it suits them, thus avoiding crowds. This in itself should be enough to conduct a safe election from a health perspective. From an election security perspective, this would close the door to fraud.

Given the vast scope for fraud that mass mail-in voting in the nature of the case introduces, one would think that measures would be taken to reduce those opportunities to a minimum. But the opposite has been the case, as witness the difficulties surrounding the cleanup of voter registration rolls, to which we now turn.

Why was legislation passed keeping the states from maintaining up-to-date voter registration rolls?

Such legislation was passed long before mass mail-in balloting was introduced, but has not been amended on this point despite the problems pointed out in point #2. The question needs to be asked: Why was legislation passed making it difficult to ensure that voter registration rolls are up-to-date? It would seem that the danger of removing a person from the rolls is a small one, as it is a simple matter to rectify. Anyone disadvantaged in that manner would simply have to reapply. Inconvenient, but no more than that. But the opposite danger, leaving people on the rolls who have either moved away or have passed away, is a far greater one, simply by virtue of the scope it gives to voter fraud. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 makes it illegal for a state to remove anyone from the rolls who does not respond to requests for verification, until two election cycles have passed (52 U.S. Code § 20507.d). That opens the door wide for abuse over a four-year period. What is the purpose of that?

By what right did courts overturn voting laws duly passed by state legislatures?

This was done by e.g. the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, even though it has no jurisdiction in the matter. The US Constitution expressly grants the state legislatures authority over presidential elections. In fact, they are the only bodies authorized in this regard. What was the rationale? Natural law? Human rights? Not only is state law overturned in this manner, but the US Constitution as well.

Why did courts extend the date and time by which ballots have to be returned, beyond the time at which the polls have to close, in contradiction to duly promulgated election law?

Specifically, this was done by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court less than two months prior to the election of Nov. 3^rd. Pennsylvania law requires that votes be received prior to 8 pm on that day. But the Supreme Court extended that deadline by another three days. What could possibly be the reason for this? The exigencies of mail-in voting? But it also opens the door to ballot stuffing. The risk far outweighs the benefit. Or enlighten me as to how that is not the case?

Why were partisan private organizations funded by wealthy partisan activists allowed to conduct voter registration and ballot reception (e.g., ballot boxes)?

These are functions which accrue to government and only government. Yet Mark Zuckerberg provided $400 million to entities getting involved in the voting process, including the provision and gathering of ballot boxes. How is the monetary influence of a partisan activist allowed into the electoral process? How is this supposed to build confidence in the non-partisan, fair and above-board character of elections? Would Democrats be fine if the Koch brothers participated in the electoral process in this manner?

Why did the courts allow mail-in ballots without requiring matching signatures?

This article by the Tennessee Star details various court actions to block the requirement for matching signatures. The argument is that the requirement is not feasible because verifiers lack expertise in discerning proper signatures; likewise, that it is unjust because signatures change over time. Fine; but we are left with a problem: how do we discern which ballots are legitimate and which are fraudulent? If signature matching won’t work, what will? Without signature matching, the only feasible alternative seems to be banning mail-in balloting altogether. Otherwise there is an open door for fraud that is an unacceptable risk. Right? Or do we not care so much about election integrity after all?

Why was the percentage of disapproved mail-in ballots so much lower in this election than previous ones, especially given the fact that mail-in balloting was conducted on a massive scale in this election?

Mail-in ballots have been rejected at the rate of 2-5% in all previous elections. Yet in this election, in which they were used on a massive scale never before attempted, they all of a sudden were rejected at rates such as 0.2%, 100 times less than before. Please explain?

Why was the chain of custody of ballots not maintained?

This has been reported over and over again, especially in Pennsylvania and Georgia. This means that there is no way to tell whether the ballots cast were cast legitimately or not. Is that any way to run an election? Of course not. And those ballots need to be counted anyway, because otherwise the will of the people is thwarted – or so the argument goes. If I were going to commit voter fraud, this is exactly how I would do it, daring anyone to overturn the result.

Why were ballots in majority Democrat precincts cured while those in majority Republican precincts were not?

Ballot curing is the procedure by which ballots are opened and checked to see if they meet the requisite criteria, such as a signature. In Pennsylvania, such curing was done in Democrat-majority precincts but not in Republican-majority precincts. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Why this differential application of the law?

Why were absentee and mail-in ballots separated from the enclosing envelopes, so that they could not be checked to see if they met legal requirements for authenticity?

In Georgia, the Secretary of State established rules ostensibly for the sake of voter privacy, by which mail-in ballots are separated from their enclosing envelopes. This means they cannot be verified in any future recount. “Emergency rules that were adopted ahead of the presidential election explicitly require, in order to preserve the secrecy of each individual vote as laid out in Georgia law and the Georgia Constitution, that ballots be separated from their envelopes so that they cannot possibly be joined back together” (Fox News). How does preserving the original envelope together with the original ballot violate the secrecy of anyone’s vote?

Why were poll watchers obstructed from performing the function for which they were there, in violation of law and custom?

Poll watchers were harassed, vilified, obstructed, put behind barriers, removed from the premises. Such procedure is totally unacceptable even in third-world countries, where the US, the EU, and the UN routinely send poll watchers. In Scott Adams’ view, this alone is enough to disqualify the election. If you have nothing to hide, what is with the thuggish intimidation?

Is the threat of the spread of the corona virus a sufficient excuse to ignore election laws regarding poll watching?

“The need for social distancing” was one excuse used to keep poll watchers from being able to conduct oversight of the process pursuant to the law. Another was restrictions on the number of people allowed inside the room where the ballot counting was taking place – whereby only Republicans are removed from or kept from entering the room. All of this seems very convenient – disobey precisely those laws put in place to ensure election transparency, all for the sake of “flattening the curve.” How about flattening the shared confidence on which the Republic is built?  

Why is it problematic to allow eyewitnesses and expert witnesses to testify about voter fraud that may or may not have occurred?

This is truly puzzling. People who say they care so much about election integrity, refuse to allow people to present eyewitness and expert testimony precisely about election integrity. Is it because such testimony comes from those of the opposite political persuasion? No, of course not. That is why there are the mind-numbing, Kafkaesque references to “Keystone Kop” pleadings, character assassinations, dismissals for lack of standing or not filing in time (this is what happened with Lin Wood’s lawsuit in the Georgia courts – you need to file a lawsuit about election fraud before the election takes place?) – anything to avoid dealing with the substance, the actual material evidence.

This is guaranteed to assuage the suspicions and ease the fears of those who feel the election was stolen, right? Or is it just another attempt at intimidation, this time of millions of voters?

Why are witnesses being harassed, assaulted, intimidated, fired from jobs, forced to move?

Again, this goes really far to allay the fears of those who think there is fire where there is smoke. Thuggish intimidation is very helpful to help people see the error of their ways. Of course there was no fraud. How do we know this? Because if you question the result, you get dumped on! Proof enough for anyone!

Why did the networks quickly call the election for Joe Biden and refuse to cover challenges to those results?

This was done in direct contradiction to their procedure in 2000 regarding Al Gore and George W. Bush. It may all seem very stentorian, but in fact it only reinforces even more strongly the impression that this election was fixed. If there were no prearranged coordinated timeline for these things, there would have been no simultaneous calling of the election for Biden. Otherwise the networks would have waited, the way they waited in 2000 in another disputed election. But they didn’t – why?

Why is Big Tech doing everything it can to restrict free speech and muzzle debate in the public square?

Why does all restriction run in favor of progressives and against conservatives? Every “fact check” just happens to correct conservative points, never liberal ones. Is that because only progressives tell the truth, and conservatives tell nothing but lies? Is this the polity our Founding Fathers fought and died to establish?

What is the purpose of introducing voting machines with such a dubious background as Dominion Voting Systems?

A company as opaque as Dominion with all the baggage it drags around with it, such as Sequoia Voting Systems, an acquisition which itself is the product of Smartmatic, a company founded by three Venezuelans with ties to Hugo Chavez – which is now purportedly owned by shell companies which can be traced to the Chinese Communist Party – how can such a company be handed the reins over vast portions of the American electorate? There is plenty of eyewitness and expert testimony to the effect that this company is party to systemic voter fraud, both in this election and previous ones, in this and in other countries. The only defense it has to these claims is simple denials.

If Dominion has nothing to hide, why has it not made anyone available to answer questions?

… or provide evidence beyond bare assertions of complete innocence? It has abandoned its offices, and its personnel have scrubbed their profiles on social media. Why?

Does it not bother you that the head of Smartmatic, historically closely associated with Dominion, has just now been appointed to run the Open Society Foundation, the major vehicle of the wealthy partisan activist George Soros?

This would be Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, chairman of Smartmatic. Why are such obvious partisans being allowed to run elections? How can they be trusted to be fair, given the demonstrable capacity for these systems to manipulate the voting process? How does this bolster confidence among all parties that the electoral procedure will be fair and above-board?

Each one of these points is an indicator of utter indifference to fraudulent procedures, whether they took place or not. They provide a priori reasons for skepticism regarding any claim that the election went off entirely transparently, above-board, and by the book. Add to this all the various statistical anomalies that have been demonstrated, themselves enough to cast grave doubt on the results, and one is left shaking one’s head when one is told to move along, there’s nothing to see here. Especially when this is done by the same people who for years forced us to endure daily updates about a Russian collusion investigation that ended up yielding nothing. You had time for that investigation; why do you not have time for this one?

OK then, despite your inability to answer these questions, if you’re still satisfied with the result, it is a sign that you are one of these:

European – Europeans view Democrats as kindred spirits and Republicans as awful people. Their sympathies lie instinctively with Democrats. What they do not understand is how different Democrats are from them. None of the above-listed practices are allowed in European democracies. That Europeans now look the other way when credible evidence is brought forward, only indicates how deeply ideology affects critical thinking. The end justifies the means is the bottom-line ethic of modernists. And the Schadenfreude Europeans instinctively feel when America crashes and burns is just icing on the cake.

Leftist – of course there’s nothing to see here if you’re a leftist. You are entitled to power, and when you lose elections, that in itself is an injustice. Then you believe any conspiracy theory that comes along with regard to election malfeasance, such as the Russian collusion plot, which must be true regardless of the absence of actual evidence – a complete reversal of their position regarding this election, in which nothing could have happened despite the hundreds if not thousands of sworn testimonies to the contrary. But actually, this is just another chapter in leftists’ long history of Carrying the Water for:

Ruling Class Elitist – yes, this is just your cup of tea. Four years of enduring Donald Trump and Make America Great Again, spoiling your efforts to treat the world as your oyster, whereby you divide it up into administrative regions to be exploited to your own benefit, at the expense of the working and middle classes in both developed and developing countries. A strong America is the only thing standing in your way, and together with the Chinese Communist Party, you have dreams of globalist hegemony such that the world has never seen before. Elysium beckons, and this is the way to get there.

There is only one problem with all of this. Absent a convincing reply to these questions listed above – which could be multiplied – we are headed for some serious civil unrest. Because those of us who refuse to eat the excrement sandwich you are providing for us are not about take this lying down. With all due respect, of course.