For the last couple of weeks, all we’ve heard is that the Russians hacked our elections. It isn’t true of course, that was just a disinformation and misdirection campaign. It was fake news brought to us by the mainstream media but it actually serves a purpose as you will see. Click HERE for a news search on Russia’s hacking to see the evidence of who was propagating the disinformation.
On January 5, 2015, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing that was formally titled, Foreign Cyber Threats to the United States. John McCain chaired the committee. On C-Span, this hearing was titled, Russian Hacking and Cybersecurity so even C-Span got into the disinfo act but in the hearing, John McCain said that nobody believed the Russians were involved in hacking the American election system so what the mainstream media was attempting to do was to create the perception of a foreign threat when there was none so we can dispense with that storyline as the reason for the focus on the election system. From the mouths of John McCain and James Clapper nobody believes the Russians hacked our election system:
Despite the fact that McCain and Clapper both said that the Russians did not hack our election system, the next day after the hearing, January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a report titled, Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution”. This is a carefully worded report that has no substance. It documents their “beliefs” that the Russians interfered with our elections process – not by a cyber hack, but a mind hack. RT, dared to provide a counter-narrative to the American mainstream media echo chamber of propaganda.
Also on January 6, 2017, the Secretary of Homescam Security, Jeh Johnson announced they were declaring our election system as “critical infrastructure”. The significance is that it ostensibly gives Homescam Security the authority to take over control of our elections process allegedly to protect it from “cyber terrorists”.
The federal takeover of information in the U.S. based upon a designation of “critical infrastructure” began in 1995 following the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39) to establish the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) and the Feds have been in the business of centralizing control of everything – building the technocratic police state ever since.
During the Senate hearing, one of the senators mentioned that President Obama included a signing statement on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017. He signed this statement on December 23, 2016.
Globalizing Cyber Security
I note that section 923 of the Act requires that the President establish a unified combatant command for cyber operations forces, while section 1642 prohibits the Secretary of Defense from terminating the “dual-hat” arrangement under which the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) also serves as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), unless the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify that ending this arrangement will not pose risks to the military effectiveness of CYBERCOM that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States. Although I appreciate the Congress’s interest in strengthening our Nation’s cyber capabilities and ensuring that the NSA and CYBERCOM are best positioned to confront the array of cyber threats we face, I do not support these provisions as drafted: the Congress should leave decisions about the establishment of combatant commands to the executive branch and should not place unnecessary and bureaucratic administrative burdens and conditions on ending the dual-hat arrangement at a time when the speed and nature of cyber threats requires agility in making decisions about how best to organize and manage the Nation’s cyber capabilities. That said, after directing a comprehensive review of this issue earlier this year, and consistent with the views of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, I strongly support elevating CYBERCOM to a unified combatant command and ending the dual-hat arrangement for NSA and CYBERCOM ‑‑ a position my Administration has communicated to the incoming Administration. While the dual-hat arrangement was once appropriate in order to enable a fledgling CYBERCOM to leverage NSA’s advanced capabilities and expertise, CYBERCOM has since matured and the current construct should be replaced through a deliberate, conditions-based approach to separating the organizations. The two organizations should have separate leaders who are able to devote themselves to each organization’s respective mission and responsibilities, but should continue to leverage the shared capabilities and synergies developed under the dual-hat arrangement. To these ends, the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have taken steps to ensure that separation would occur in a phased manner that enables NSA to continue to provide vital operational support to CYBERCOM during a transition period.
Beyond these provisions, I remain deeply concerned about the Congress’s use of the National Defense Authorization Act to impose extensive organizational changes on the Department of Defense, disregarding the advice of the Department’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders. The extensive changes in the bill are rushed, the consequences poorly understood, and they come at a particularly inappropriate time as we undertake a transition between administrations. These changes not only impose additional administrative burdens on the Department of Defense and make it less agile, but they also create additional bureaucracies and operational restrictions that generate inefficiencies at a time when we need to be more efficient.
According to an article titled, Congress set to elevate CYBERCOM to unified combatant command on a website called C4ISRNet, the plan to make CYBERCOM an independent organization within the Unified Command structure was already in progress as of December 1, 2016. Excerpts:
Congress is set to authorize the elevation of US Cyber Command, taking it from under the purview of US Strategic Command and making it a fully unified combatant command.
What this designation means in practical terms is greater scope in global campaign planning, funding, authorities, personnel and policy, said Mackenzie Eaglen, resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
This elevation also makes cyber a core and priority mission for the Department of Defense, according to Eaglen.
The following is a diagram of the Unified Command structure. As you can see the combatant commands are regional. Since CYBERCOM has no region, it will cover the world of cyber.
So now that we know what the plans are for CYBERCOM, let’s go back and take another look at the Director of Homescam Security, Jeh Johnson.
Way back in August, Jeh Johnson was the guest at the Christian Science Monitor Breakfast. Reporter Brian Bennett of the LA Times had a question for Johnson that was about the idea of declaring our election system as part of the critical infrastructure. The lead-up to the question included information that the DNC hired a private security firm to investigate their “hack”. Johnson’s answer to the question was too long and too concise for it not to have been a staged question that was set up in advance.
Did you notice that Johnson’s answer includes reference to HAVA – Help America Vote Act of 2002?
The Brennan Center produced a Fact Sheet about the HAVA legislation. HAVA included the following:
Statewide Computerized Voter Registration List3
• By January 1, 2004, or January 6, 2004 if the State receives a waiver, states must
establish a computerized, statewide voter registration list to allow faster, more
reliable, and centralized registration of voters.
• The computerized, statewide voter registration list must be coordinated with other
agency records in the State for purposes of verifying the accuracy of information
provided on voter registration applications.
• HAVA provides minimum standards to ensure that voter registration records are
accurate and updated regularly.
3 Pub. Law 107-252 § 303(a); 42 U.S.C. § 14853(a).
This section is the tell about what is really happening – which is nationalization of the voter registration database. An educated guess would be that all of the states are in compliance so the Feds will be taking over the databases.
Statewide Computerized Voter Registration List
• Broad network of databases to verify registration information. In addition to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration, the statewide voter registration list should be coordinated with the databases of corrections agencies, agencies mandated to provide voter registration under the National Voter Registration Act, public assistance and disability offices, Medicaid and Medicare offices, public universities and other state agencies. Privacy concerns should be fully and carefully addressed in designing the system.
• Clear, uniform procedures for processing voter registrations. State election officials should develop clear procedures for accepting, verifying, updating and canceling voter registrations across the state. Among other things, these procedures should ensure that voter registration applications are not rejected for failure to provide a driver’s license or social security number, and that a unique identifying number is assigned to those applicants who do not provide this information. These procedures should also define what is required to “match” information in registration applications with state records in a manner that does not result in a high rate of erroneous “non-matches.”
These two requirement will ensure that anybody can vote – citizen or not.
The paydirt in all of it is finding the plan for globalization of cyber security under military command – supposedly. The so-called “intelligence community” are agencies and divisions within agencies that manage the IT systems for the critical infrastructure and control systems.
So what do you think? Was the integrity of the intelligence community compromised by the Russian hack story? You be the judge.
Hint: President Clinton created a monster that can’t be controlled when he signed PDD-39.