It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Homeland Eyes Special Declaration to Take Charge of Elections

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
i can't believe what i'm seeing here.

It kinda sounds to me like:

"we're getting hacked, so let's federalize it. it's better if we do the record keeping for you."

Homeland Wants Control Over POTUS Elections Citing "Critical Infrastructure"

I'm just going to leave this here for a moment.

How does this strike everyone else? Federalizing our Presidential Election process? To Homeland Security?

It almost feels too dangerous to click post.




posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

i swear, i think i'm dreaming.

first passage from the link:

"Even before the FBI identified new cyber attacks on two separate state election boards, the Department of Homeland Security began considering declaring the election a "critical infrastructure," giving it the same control over security it has over Wall Street and and the electric power grid.

The latest admissions of attacks could speed up that effort possibly including the upcoming presidential election, according to officials."

am i wrong in the notion that calling this a MASSIVE conflict of interest is an understatement?

couple this with the "if someone dies we'll just pick someone for you" story that just came out, can't help but feel like these ran in conjunctive purpose.

seriously what's going on here? i'm baffled.



EDIT:

More from the link:

"DHS describes it this way on their website: "There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof."

It's almost as if DHS is making the assertion that they need US Elections to be covered under their umbrella of "critical infrastructures," because WITHOUT it, having states currently determine how their votes are counted and who they nominated for president "would have a debilitating effect" on our country.

They are, in an odd way, comparing our elections for POTUS to something that can be incapacitated or destroyed.

That's a LOADED statement, but i can't forgive the wording. am i wrong?
edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: grammar



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

That is not at all what Jeh Johnson said. I understand it is the title of the article, but it is not what DHS said.He says DHS should offer 'best practices' measures.

I can see why this could look alarming, but the states keep messing up. They lose boxes of votes. Their machines malfunction. They remove people from parties to 'not enrolled'.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Reldra... what do "best practices" mean to you? Honestly.

To me it means "whatever we feel like doing because we're federalizing the election process."

I think his language is purposely vague.

EDIT:

Quote from the link:

"Johnson also said that the big issue at hand is that there isn't a central election system since the states run elections. "There's no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process," Johnson said."

Are you a fan of central banks? Big 6 media? the federal reserve?

If not, i can't see how you'd find a central election system run by this organization to potentially be a great idea.
edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: spelling



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I can't wait to see Alex Jones reaction to this... He's already pissed about them threatening to take control of the internet Oct 1st.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye
I read the article and watched the video. Taken at face value it is a compelling idea.
Of course everyone is entitled to interpret the information give any way their mind filter allows them to.

I feel you are being paranoid and a bit knee jerkish.
Besides this is Homeland Security the government agency who's task is to guard against attacks on U.S. interests.


So It all boils down to a matter of trust.
Don't forget the "hanging chad" debacle and how Florida F'ed that whole thing up *yes my home state!

I have a feeling a nationwide cohesive/consolidated way of ensuring proper management, security and oversight would have prevented that fiasco/fraud and others which have surely happened.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Sounds just like the communist party, or Obama's ace in the hole to steer his failed legacy forward



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

We truly live in precarious times!

Over the past 20 years we have witnessed many a "conspiracy" theory become law.

The DHS has been at the core of destroying the sovereignty of the American public. Making it public that they ultimately do control the election is simply another elite joke on the apathetic masses.

I have always laughed about the belief that our vote actually counts... may as well continue laughing!



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The GUY who called vets POTENTIAL TERRORISTS ,an Islamic infiltrator who RUNS DHS,what could go wrong?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

This is how they are going to make Clinton president. This is a strong indicator that she does not have the popular support and cannot get the top job without assistance. It also demonstrates just how powerful 'they' are who want Clinton in the job.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Just (1) get rid of the voting machines already and go back to paper ballots. And, (2) for God's sake, do away with the absentee ballots in its current form. Also, (3) preferably demand voter ID - you need ID for driving a car, for buying alcohol and for all sorts of other stuff, right?

(1)+(2)+(3) = unhackable elections with an auditable paper trail, that is really, really hard to manipulate on a large scale.

No real need for DHS to intervene.

(The problem, by the way, with absentee ballots is that voting records is sort of public, which means it is possible to see who usually does not vote. And knowing that makes it possible to know who to 'absentee' for. Sometimes the voters who does not vote, does not vote because ... they are dead. Thus all the dead voters voting.)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: facedye

We truly live in precarious times!

Over the past 20 years we have witnessed many a "conspiracy" theory become law.

The DHS has been at the core of destroying the sovereignty of the American public. Making it public that they ultimately do control the election is simply another elite joke on the apathetic masses.

I have always laughed about the belief that our vote actually counts... may as well continue laughing!


I completely agree with you.

There's absolutely no precedence in my mind for something so drastic and immediate.

How can anyone reasonably believe that federal oversight by DHS will improve our elections?

I implore anybody here thinking this is a good idea to consider this: what has DHS ever done to benefit this country's safety or security? Surely you must remember this department was an implementation by the Bush administration as one "response" to 9/11.

What have they done since then that you find beneficial to our sense of safety and security?

Is it the 1.6 billion rounds of bullets (some of which are hollow point tips) they were looking to procure?

Homeland Security Aims To Buy 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo

Or maybe you're made to feel safer by their random checkpoints? Pulling you over driving down the interstate, asking you for your papers?

I really need you guys and gals to think about this. The same institution who bought 1.6 billion rounds of bullets and don't trust American citizens enough while they're driving in their cars within their own country wants to control your election process - for "safety concerns."

....Come on. Call a spade a spade.
edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: grammar



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
This is all we need to know.... don't let this happen!

United States Secretary of Homeland Security: Jeh Charles Johnson
Political party: Democratic

Obama picked this guy for a reason, he is probably just a loyal as Walmart employee Janet Napolitano!



www.washingtonexaminer.com...


"
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.
There's a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,"


They are setting the stage for the sick old lady in diapers.


edit on 31-8-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
This is all we need to know.... don't let this happen!

United States Secretary of Homeland Security: Jeh Charles Johnson
Political party: Democratic

Obama picked this guy for a reason, he is probably just a loyal as Walmart employee Janet Napolitano!



www.washingtonexaminer.com...


"
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.
There's a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,"


They are setting the stage for the sick old lady in diapers.



Agreed, this is potentially the slimiest imperative-by-misdirection tactic i've ever seen in real time.
edit on 31-8-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: grubblesnert
a reply to: facedye
I read the article and watched the video. Taken at face value it is a compelling idea.
Of course everyone is entitled to interpret the information give any way their mind filter allows them to.

I feel you are being paranoid and a bit knee jerkish.
Besides this is Homeland Security the government agency who's task is to guard against attacks on U.S. interests.


So It all boils down to a matter of trust.
Don't forget the "hanging chad" debacle and how Florida F'ed that whole thing up *yes my home state!

I have a feeling a nationwide cohesive/consolidated way of ensuring proper management, security and oversight would have prevented that fiasco/fraud and others which have surely happened.


You're stating that I'm having a kneejerk reaction to this? Please tell me *exactly* how any part of my reasoning or understanding of this issue is a kneejerk reaction.

You state that I'm being paranoid, and in the same breath state that it "boils down to a matter of trust."

You would trust the federal government before your state representatives? Has the federal government ever betrayed your trust?



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator
What makes you think clinton would get the election? (hypothetical) All Homeland Security has to say is that the elections have been corrupted making them null an void, obamas stays in office until "new" election can take place.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join