Obama Administration Declares Federalization of Election Process

A signature characteristic of a republic is a free, fair, decentralized election process.  It is a misnomer to say we have “democratic” elections as the united States is not a democracy.  Former communist nations who engage in “democratic” elections have a process that is centralized, meaning controlled through their national government and not administered at a local (state, city or county) level.  When it comes to elections in the united States, the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to engage in the election process per Article I, Section 8.  The Tenth Amendment reserves to the State or the people respectively all authority not given to the federal government, which means the States are responsible for the election process.  However, that may no longer be the case since Department of Homeland Security director Jeh Johnson announced on Friday, January 6, 2017, that elections will now be considered “critical infrastructure” meaning the federal government can monitor and intervene in the election process.

The 2016 election cycle proved to be a three-ring circus rivaling anything Barnum & Bailey, Ringling Bros. offered the public in entertainment.  Anyone who has been following the election cycle beginning in 2015 does not need reference sources to justify that analogy.  That being said, references worth the read will be used to show the lead-ins, in some cases, that signaled this federal grab of State-operated election processes in this republic.  Then, the “takeover” of the election process by the federal government will be discussed.

By now, everyone should have knowledge of Hillary Clinton operating a private email server in the basement of her New York home while Secretary of State.  Likewise, everyone should know that it was unsecured, supposedly hacked by an individual calling himself “Guccifer,” and sensitive classified information as well as SAP programs were found on her server through an FBI investigation.  The FBI did not recommend charges be filed or prosecution of Hillary move forward despite finding her in violation of the law.

Fast forward to the release of the Podesta emails, DNC emails and the Clinton emails through WikiLeaks where Julian Assange has stated on numerous occasions that Russia, the Russian government, nor Vladimir Putin were the sources for these leaks.  In fact, access to John Podesta’s emails were done through a “phishing” scam where it was discovered he had a weak password.  Later, an individual stepped forward to say he delivered the emails to Assange’s WikiLeaks after receiving the information from the individual who obtained it.  It was through these leaks the public learned the DNC stripped a nomination win from Bernie Sanders to install Hillary Clinton as the Democratic party presidential candidate nominee.

The same thing happened to Hillary Clinton in 2008 when vying for the Democratic party presidential nomination against Barack Hussein Obama.

During this time, closer to the actual election date, Donald Trump began speaking about the election being “rigged.”  It was at that time that alternative media outlets interviewed individuals from Blackboxvoting.org, whose founders are liberal Democrats, to show exactly how the votes cast could be altered through imbedded software and middle man vendors responsible for compiling election results from various states.  The organization also previewed how vote counts could be manipulated through “fractional” counting embedded in the GEMS system used by multiple states.  Enter one Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah to declare elections are not rigged;  it was not possible for anyone to tamper with election results;  and, Trump should stop whining.  Yet, Democrats whined about “rigging” when campaigning — Al Gore and Barack Hussein Obama.

The accusations and proof of the election results being “rigged” come not from an outside source or foreign government;  but, from within the very electronic system established for voting and tallying those votes as indicated by Blackboxvoting.org.  Instead of States ceasing the electronic manipulation by hard coded software or returning to a paper ballot, the solution handed down by the federal government is to establish the process as critical infrastructure, which could lead to federalization of the election process — a move that is unconstitutional.  And, the united States does suffer from election fraud as investigations have exposed.  However, this is on the part of Democrats, particularly the Clinton campaign.

In August of 2016, ZeroHedge reported the Department of Homeland Security was evaluating whether to declare the election process as “critical infrastructure” in order to interject the federal government into the election process by federalization.  Sen. Harry Reid sent a letter to the FBI, per report by the New York Times, stating, “I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.” [bold print ZeroHedge]  The very next day, Jeh Johnson, director of DHS, announced at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, the election process was being considered as “critical infrastructure” in order to protect it from hacking or foreign influence.


One can read about critical infrastructure at the Department of Homeland Security website.

The November election was held with Trump taking enough States to secure the 270 electoral votes to become the next president of the united States.  Democrats immediately slammed the electoral college process, calling for election by popular vote.  Liberal Democrat extremist, Hollyweird personalities, and butt-hurt losers took to social media, TV public service announcements and the streets to protest the outcome, going so far as to harass and issue death threats to members of the electoral college.  The electoral college members were not phased by this awarding Trump a win of 304 electoral votes.

For the past few months, Obama and Democrats have floated the falsehood that Russia, the Russian government, and specifically Russia under the direction of Vladimir Putin “hacked” the US election process to swing votes to ensure a Trump win, without any evidence whatsoever.  Moreover, the president is not elected via a national popular vote, but through the Electoral College whose members can vote for any individual in the running for the office of the presidency.  But, I digress.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp reported an attempt to breach the State’s secure firewall to access his department in December of 2016.  The State’s third party cybersecurity firm tracked the attempted breach to a Department of Homeland Security IP address.  Kemp issued a letter to Jeh Johnson at the DHS requesting an explanation.  Kemp told Politico  this is an attempt by the federal government “to subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of  federalizing elections under the guise of security.”  Kemp stated he saw “clear motivation by the 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.”  He stated that this “smacked of partisan politics.”  Atlanta News Station WSB-TV, channel 2 reported on the breach attempt.


Despite proof of attempted breaches in several States’ departments responsible for elections, proof of compromised electronic voting machine software and influence by middle men, and proof of Democratic voter fraud, this administration has repeatedly, along with the Clinton camp and Democrats, asserted that Russia is “hacking” US elections.  The intelligence community has issued a report backing up the administration rhetoric while many intelligence community sources for news outlets claim there is no evidence to support the Russian hack claims.  Lamestream enemedia outlets have been quick to air the administration rhetoric while ignoring any of the reports there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim of Russian hacking US elections.

Now, in a last minute announcement on January 6, 2016, by Homeland Security’s Jeh Johnson, the elections will now be classified as “critical infrastructure,” meaning the federal government will unconstitutionally insert itself into a free, fair, decentralized election process.  ZeroHedge  outlined the statement issued by Jeh Johnson at Homeland Security.

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.

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.

Anytime someone from the federal government states, “this does not mean a federal takeover, regulation, oversight or intrusion …,” it is almost a guarantee that is means exactly that — just remember Obama’s statements about Obamacare; “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period.”  The same statement was issued concerning individuals keeping their current physician.  Both of these claims about Obamacare turned out to be false, with Obama knowing it when he said it.

And in my article yesterday, Republicans Purport to Repeal Obamacare But Turn Around to Offer Replacement Option, I wrote, “Whether good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse, the Republican “replacement” would fall under the same unconstitutional label as Obamacare since the Constitution does not provide the government the authority over health care or health care insurance in Article I, Section 8.”  The same thing applies to the election process.  It is unconstitutional for the federal government to interfere with or access control over the election process, despite anyone in any government position declaring it “the right thing to do.”  Their “right thing” violates the law — the Constitution for the united States of America.

ZeroHedge connected the dots writing, “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. ” [bold face by ZeroHedge]

According to ZeroHedge:

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.”

As Infowars.com reported, Jeh Johnson sent a letter to the Associated Press declaring the federal government would “monitor and intervene in future elections, a process previously done on a state-by-state basis.”

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

The designation “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,” according to the AP.

With only 12 days remaining in the Obama administration, this stunning act of federal over-reach does smack of partisan politics and could possible be undone by a Trump administration when Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson is replaced by a Trump nominee.  So the question, “why now?”  With all the false accusations on Russia hacking elections and now this move in the last few days of the Obama administration, could this mean the DHS could declare the past November election “null and void” because of their claim of Russian hacking to engage in a new election where the election process is “monitored and intervened” by the government, most certainly guaranteeing stripping Trump of the win and thwarting the American public?

While many may poo-poo that possibility, remember one thing — the NDAA provided presidential control over all “critical infrastructure,” including food in your pantry and refrigeration, during times of national emergency.  A declaration of a national emergency from a real event or convincing false flag event perpetrated by the administration before January 20, 2017, could very well be possible with the reputation of Obama and the sore loser attitudes of Democrats and Clinton.  What would be the purpose of federalizing or centralizing the election process with only 12 days to go unless a plan was in place to hold new elections?  It is either to declare the election “null and void” or allow for a potential event ushering in a declaration of a state of national emergency to thwart Trump entering the White House.  Hussein Soetoro would stay in office just long enough to further destroy this republic during the national emergency.  Once the emergency was over, a new election, managed by the federal government, could then take place ensuring whomever the administration wants to win does.  Obama’s legacy is on the line, starting with Obamacare, which he has vehemently opposed to being dismantled by Republicans.  With his many personality disorders, one should expect the unexpected and unpredictable where this man is concerned.

And, remember, even communist nations have elections, but those elections are centralized as well as other nations dubbed democracies.  Even Stalin had little issue with citizens voting in elections.  He said it very well that, “it matters not who votes;  let everyone vote.  It matters who counts the votes.”  Stalin knew with centralized control of voting, the process is not transparent and the government declared the winner;  which, in the case of communist Russia, the only possible winner would be him or a member of the communist party when he died.

Reread the statement made by the AP, “The designation ‘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’.”  Don’t forget about the software and ability to change results discovered by Blackboxvoting.org in our current voting machines.  And, keep in mind that all of this is unconstitutional as members of Congress, including Republicans, remain silent.

But, nothing will probably happen and Trump will take the White House.  However, the federalization of elections may remain in place, meaning Republicans would benefit as well as Democrats, thereby maintaining the status quo of oligarchical rule.  But, are we as united States citizens comfortable with that?  It is the question everyone must answer for themselves then act on whatever their answer is.




About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Tyranny, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.