This is a coup: the Homeland Security takeover of US elections

This is a coup: the Homeland Security takeover of US elections

On a scale of importance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important, this breaking development is a 500.

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2017

On Friday, the traditional day of the week for quietly releasing big news that will hopefully be ignored by the public—and also obscured by the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting—the chief of Homeland Security announced that his office will be taking over US elections.

If you can’t see the coup in progress, you need to keep looking until the message comes through.

Read carefully—ABC News reports. My comments are in brackets:

“Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that’s ‘vital to our national interests’, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he’s designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure…”

[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]

“’Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law’,” Johnson said in a statement. He added: ‘Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do’.”

[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]

“The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘ordered’ an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”

[Also known as: “we needed an excuse, a fake cover story for our takeover, and Russia is it.”]

“Such a change [in who controls the US election process] does not require presidential action [or Congressional approval], and only requires the secretary [of DHS] to first consult with the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.”

[Also known as: “this is a coup by the White House.”]

“Johnson said election infrastructure included storage facilities, polling places and vote tabulation locations, plus technology involved in the process, including voter registration databases, voting machines and other systems used to manage the election process and report and display results.”

[Also known as: “We’re taking over every significant aspect of the national election process.”]

“The designation [of US elections as critical infrastructure] allows for information to be withheld from the public when state, local and private partners meet to discuss election infrastructure security — potentially injecting secrecy into an election process that’s traditionally and expressly a transparent process. U.S. officials say such closed door conversations allow for frank discussion that would prevent bad actors from learning about vulnerabilities. DHS would also be able to grant security clearances when appropriate and provide more detailed threat information to states.”

[Also known as: “we can intercede in the election process and determine its outcome without any need to pretend we’re being transparent; only people we approve will know the details of how we run elections; secrecy works.”]

“The Obama administration has proposed international cyber rules for peacetime that would expressly note that countries shouldn’t conduct online activity targeting critical [US] infrastructure, which will now also include election systems.”

[Also known as: “in case there is any doubt, elections systems in America will be property of the federal Executive Branch.”]

This is a coup.

This is equivalent to declaring a national state of emergency, including martial law: the DHS, if it deemed it necessary, could utilize armed agents to enforce the new directive and take over states’ offices that resist.

Election-processes belong to the states. But not anymore.

And of course, with this awesome new power, the DHS could intercede, behind the scenes, in the voting process and rig elections.

There is an additional aligned factor at work in this op: the proposed elimination of the Electoral College—yet another measure designed to “federalize” the election process.

Most people are entirely ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was a pact among states. With reluctance, the independent states agreed to relinquish certain specified powers to the newly created central government, while retaining all other powers.

The Electoral College was, therefore, a natural invention, because the states would maintain crucial influence in determining the outcome of presidential elections. State Electors would cast their presidential votes based on which candidate won in their state.

Eliminating the Electoral College now would add one more layer of federal control over the whole country, and take control from the states. More centralization.

Imagine it. Only the popular vote counts. The states are dumped. And on top of it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security has the power to run the election process as a piece of “critical infrastructure.”

Rigging the vote in New York and California, plus a few other populous states, would decide the election. And in time, no one would think about “New York” or “California” as separate entities—because they wouldn’t be. They would just be “more land and people” that are part of “wholly unified” America.

This is perfect for the “unity politicians” who spout empty rhetoric every chance they get—“we’re all in this together.” As I tirelessly point out, such slogans are nothing less than covert ops, and their goal is roping in as many dullards as possible under a messianic banner of A Better Life for All under a Beneficent Government.

Also known as: we the rulers decree, you the people submit; your survival depends on us; we give and take as we will, and that shall be the whole of the law.

Eventually, why have presidential elections at all? Just allow the DHS to determine which candidate will best serve the needs and desires of the controllers.

It’s cleaner, simpler, and more direct.

It’s a coup.

Will Trump cancel it?

Obama is basically challenging him to do it—which would create one more firestorm in the press directed at Trump.

“See, the new president just stopped the DHS from protecting our sacred free elections. Trump is exhibiting more treasonous cooperation with his Russian masters…he’s leaving the door wide open for their secret invasion against our liberties…”

The timeline is clear. One: Hillary will surely win the election. Two: Trump won the election. Three: Trump won because Russia “hacked the election” in his favor. Four: We must protect our national election process from foreign hacking. Five: Homeland Security must put itself in charge of national elections.

Stay tuned.

A coup just occurred.

 

The Intelligence Community versus Donald Trump

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/the_intelligence_community_versus_donald_trump.html

By John Dietrich

The continuing campaign to discredit President-Elect Trump is increasing in intensity.  It is based on allegations that the Russians interfered in the U.S. election.  It is suggested that Hillary Clinton would have won the election if the Russians had not interfered.  The establishment media echo accounts by the administration’s anonymous sources frequently neglecting to include the word “alleged.”  In spite of their damaged credibility, they have demonstrated that they can still be influential.  In addition to anonymous sources, the media are relying on academics and retired intelligence personnel.

The New York Times has reported, “The assessment by American intelligence agencies that the Russian government stole and leaked Clinton campaign emails has been accepted across the political spectrum, with the notable exception of Mr. Trump.”  Apparently, the Times searched for people who supported Trump, but they were unable to locate them.  Trump’s critics are everywhere.

Critics of the president-elect have charged him with everything but being a KGB agent.  Former acting CIA director Michael Morell claims that Vladimir Putin has “cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”  Michael V. Hayden, former director of the NSA and CIA, says he prefers the term polezni durak.  “That’s the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”  Senator Harry Reid wrote to FBI director James Comey, “It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.”  The New York Post quotes a CIA official: “It’s pretty horrifying to me that he’s siding with Assange over the intelligence agencies.”

Academics have weighed in.  Joshua Rovner of Southern Methodist University declared, “By ignoring intelligence, Trump risks policy tunnel vision.”  Rovner is an “expert” and the John Goodwin Tower distinguished chair of international politics and national security, so he must know what he is talking about.  CNN contributor and former CIA official Bob Baer, another “expert,” claimed, “Assange going on about a 14-year-old being able to hack Podesta is nonsense.”  Of course, Assange was exaggerating, which made his claim “nonsense.”  He should have said “15-year-old.”  John McAfee has pointed out that the Chinese stole every record that the FBI had, and in February, “a 15 year old boy hacked the FBI and published 30 thousand records including undercover agents of every agent within the FBI organization.”  The teenage hacking group “Cracka with Attitude” has also hacked into the email accounts of CIA director John Brennan and director of national intelligence James Clapper.

On October 7, 2016, the director of national intelligence issued a joint statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on election security.  In it, they claimed that the hacked e-mails, “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.”  They added, “[W]e are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.”  This was enough for Rep. Elijah Cummings to claim, “Experts agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election.”  California Rep. Eric Swalwell claimed that Trump’s denials are ridiculous.  “He [Trump] is denying that the sun sets in the West.”

Senator John McCain called Russia’s hacking “an unprecedented attack on our democracy” and suggested that it would be an act of war had Moscow’s action’s affected the results of the election.

People who disagree with the establishment narrative are unpatriotic.  When Tucker Carlson asked Rep. Adam Schiff for evidence to support his allegation that Putin ordered the hacking of Podesta’s emails, Schiff’s response was that Carlson was carrying water for Vladimir Putin and was an “apologist for the Kremlin.”  Senator Claire McCaskill declared, “The notion that the soon elected leader of this country would put Julian Assange on a pedestal compared to the men and women of the intelligence community … I think it should bring about a hue and cry.”  Senator Richard Blumenthal added, “I want to explore a little bit why these very demeaning and dismissive comments about our intelligent community are so dangerous.”

Trump is having trouble with the leadership of the intelligence community.  He may have wide support among the rank and file.  The leadership of the intelligence community has been politicized.  Information is frequently distorted.  Fifty intel analysts have made a formal complaint about their reports on ISIS being altered.  Rep. Peter King claimed that CIA director John Brennan was orchestrating a “hit job.”

He stated, “We have John Brennan – supposedly John Brennan – leaking to The Washington Post, to a biased newspaper like The New York Times, findings and conclusions that he’s not telling the intelligence committee[.]”  The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, may have committed perjury and definitely misled Congress in his testimony in 2013 on NSA data collection.

All modern governments collect information on other governments, allied and enemy.  Ordinarily, they do not divulge what they know, because they do not want to jeopardize their sources.  It is no secret that the United States has used information it has gained to influence events in other countries.  There is no question that Russia “hacked” various U.S. databases.  The question is, did they use this information to influence the U.S. election?  U.S. intelligence cannot answer that question convincingly.  Only the Russians know for sure.  U.S. intelligence contends that the Russians did not attempt to attack U.S. the voter registration database.  However, attacks may have taken place.  Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp claimed that local authorities had tracked down the origin of a hacker attack on his voter registration database after the election.  “The attack was traced to an IP address of the Department of Homeland Security.”  WSB-TV in Atlanta reported that “two more states, West Virginia and Kentucky, confirmed that the same IP address accessed their election system.”

The establishment narrative is that Trump is a tool of Putin, and how can this tool of the Russians be sworn in while tensions with Russia are increasing at such a rapid rate?  But the Russians are being used as a tool to attack Trump.  His critics will oppose him on every issue.  Some of his harshest critics are within his own party.  Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham would have been more comfortable working with a President Hillary Clinton than with Donald Trump.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, Algora Publishing, 2013. 

In Stunning Last Minute Power Grab, Obama Designates Election Systems As “Critical Infrastructure”

In a stunning last minute power grab by the Obama administration with just 14 days left in his Presidency, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement this evening officially declaring state election systems to be “critical infrastructure.”  The statement from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson defines “election infrastructure” as “storage facilities, polling places, centralized vote tabulations locations, voter registration databases, voting machines” and all “other systems” to manage the election process…so pretty much everything.

I have determined that election infrastructure in this country should be designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector. Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law.

 

I have reached this determination so that election infrastructure will, on a more formal and enduring basis, be a priority for cybersecurity assistance and protections that the Department of Homeland Security provides to a range of private and public sector entities. By “election infrastructure,” we mean storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations locations used to support the election process, and information and communications technology to include voter registration databases, voting machines, and other systems to manage the election process and report and display results on behalf of state and local governments.

Of course, it’s likely not a coincidence that the DHS made this announcement just hours after the “intelligence community” declassified their “Russian Hacking” propaganda which basically noted that RT has a very effective social media distribution platform while once again providing absolutely no actual evidence.

 

Johnson’s statement goes on to note that while many “state and local election officials are opposed to this designation”he went ahead with his decision anyway, because that’s just what the Obama administration does.

Prior to reaching this determination, my staff and I consulted many state and local election officials; I am aware that many of them are opposed to this designation. It is important to stress what this designation does and does not mean. This designation does not mean a federal takeover, regulation, oversight or intrusion concerning elections in this country. This designation does nothing to change the role state and local governments have in administering and running elections.

 

The designation of election infrastructure as critical infrastructure subsector does mean that election infrastructure becomes a priority within the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. It also enables this Department to prioritize our cybersecurity assistance to state and local election officials, but only for those who request it. Further, the designation makes clear both domestically and internationally that election infrastructure enjoys all the benefits and protections of critical infrastructure that the U.S. government has to offer. Finally, a designation makes it easier for the federal government to have full and frank discussions with key stakeholders regarding sensitive vulnerability information.

 

Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do.

Of course, one of the most vocal opponents of this move has been Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp who recently told Politico it is nothing more than an attempt to “subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.”

During an earlier interview with the site Nextgov, Kemp warned: “The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.” Kemp told POLITICO he sees a “clear motivation from this White House” to expand federal control, citing Obama’s health care law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education Department in local schools.

 

To some election officials, this sounds like the first stage of a more intrusive plan.

 

“I think it’s kind of the nose under the tent,” said Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, a Democrat. “What I think a lot of folks get concerned about [is] when the federal government says, ‘Well, look, we’re not really interested in doing that, but we just want to give you this,’ and then all of a sudden this leads to something else.”

Meanwhile, Kemp continued on by noting that “this administration only has 15 days left in its term” and to make such a critical decision during the 11th hour “smacks of partisan politics.”

But we’re sure it’s nothing, Obama doesn’t really strike us as the type to play the “partisan politics” game.

 

Source:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/stunning-last-minute-power-grab-obama-designates-election-systems-critical-infrastru