Homeland Security hints at taking over elections - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
In a headline that is sure to heighten the buzz among conspiracy theorists that believe the sitting "president" will call martial law to remain in office, Homeland Security is considering taking security control over US elections. The Washington Examiner quotes DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson as saying, "We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid." Does America need heavily armed government guards hovering over our voting process? What does this mean when the first major DHS report of this Administration in 2009 characterized Christian conservatives as right-wing extremists?
On April 7, 2009, DHS issued a report: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. That report said, "Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and "end times" prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."
Reading the DHS report seven years later, it appears like a prophecy of this Administration, characterizing as rightwing extremists those who believe in border security, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and oppose abortion. The report states: "Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment." Are these not the very issues discussed in the current election cycle?
If you are pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-border security, pro-limited government, against globalism on sending America's jobs overseas, you are being characterized today as a rightwing extremist, also a bigot and racist. Now the same DHS that established this criteria on behalf of the White House in 2009, is considering "overseeing" US elections for "security" purposes. Is this soft tyranny? Is it designed to bully you against voting for a non-Democratic Party candidate? This intimidation begins at the top. It is how our "president" views those who disagree with his Marxist Islamic beliefs. Hillary Clinton is cut from the same cloth. Proverbs 29:12 says, "If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked."
Read the April 7, 2009 DHS report here:
Democracy Challenged - by Hal Lindsey - http://www.hallindsey.com/ww-9-1-2016/
On August 18th, the FBI's Cyber Division issued an "eyes only" alert to state election officials. Various news organizations have now let the cat out of the bag, so I'm not divulging secrets here. The FBI told of intrusions into two different state election websites. In one, computer thieves stole actual voter registration information.
Yahoo News Chief Investigative Correspondent, Michael Isikoff, wrote that the flash alert "comes amid heightened concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about the possibility of cyberintrusions, potentially by Russian state-sponsored hackers, aimed at disrupting the November elections."
Imagine Russian hackers deciding American elections. Computerized voting terminals and servers can be hacked. This undermines the very idea of democracy. It strikes locally, nationally, and internationally.
Democracy in 2016 is under assault from every quarter. Bible prophecy foretells a future with autocratic rulers and small ruling councils. Critics point out that in the years since the American Revolution, representative government has taken hold all over the world. There are more democracies now than ever.
But they're missing the big picture. Democracy is beginning to unravel. There are dozens of threats to representative government around the world. Perhaps the biggest is that the world's elites have, for the most part, lost confidence in the voting public. The "great unwashed" voted Britain out of the European Union, and that may have been the last straw for the elites.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker represented the thinking of world elites recently, when he said, "Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians." Look where that logic takes you. If borders are a bad idea, then individual nations must also be a bad idea. If individual nations are a bad idea, then the only thing left is global government.
In another sign that the elites no longer trust the masses, high-end media corporations, run by global elites, have almost completely abandoned old-fashioned fair and accurate journalism. They believe commoners need to be told what to think. And that seems fine with a new generation of reporters trained at elite schools to follow the corporate line.
No matter who you plan to vote for in this year's presidential election, you have to be concerned over the death of journalistic standards. I'm not talking about columnists, editorialists, or those giving commentaries on television. Opinion is fine, but it shouldn't be labeled news.
Journalism is based on a tradition of trying to be balanced and fair in the presentation of facts. Everyone has a worldview, and it will color the way they say things. But journalists traditionally strove for accuracy and fairness - objectivity. They didn't take sides. As much as possible, they simply reported the facts of the story.
The Reuters' "Handbook of Journalism" says, "Accuracy and fairness are the hallmarks of Thomson Reuters journalism." Most journalistic organizations have a similar credo. It may be in a dusty book on a back shelf, somewhere behind the no-longer-in-use copy machine. But they have it somewhere. They just don't pay attention to it any more.
The new perspective has been well-expressed by the Univision anchorman, Jorge Ramos. The New York Times says he "is often called the Walter Cronkite of Latino America." Ramos is fiercely, even viciously anti-Trump. He says, "Trump has forced journalists to revisit rules of objectivity and fairness."
Without objectivity and fairness, what does a reporter have? If Donald Trump is bad, give fair and objective news about him, and let voters decide for themselves. But Mr. Ramos clearly wants reporters to stop being fair; stop being objective. Slanting the news equals lying. They lie to their viewers because that's the best way to manipulate voters.
As the leading voice on one of the most watched networks in the United States, Ramos is enormously powerful. Give him credit for honesty at least. Other members of the mainstream media hold the same beliefs, but don't say it. New York Times Media Columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote, "It's not unusual to see news stories describe [Trump] as 'erratic' without attribution to an opponent." Then Rutenberg excused the reporters' lack of objectivity because Trump is... well, Trump.
Journalists are simply reflecting their elite boss's attitude of disdain for voters, and, therefore, for democracy itself.
What if other American professionals should sink to the levels of modern journalism? What if others decide that a Trump or Clinton presidency is so dangerous they should stop them with every means available? It would be the end of government that is "of, for, and by the people."
In a conference call with state election officials a few days before the FBI alert, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warned of cybersecurity concerns, and offered his department's help in securing local voting systems. That's good . . . except, do you fully trust Homeland Security? What if that department's computer engineers are as willing to trash professionalism and integrity as Jorge Ramos - the new CNN, or the New York Times?
Local election officials certainly need federal help. Few communities can afford the kind of security needed to defend against modern computer hackers. And we can't allow the Russian government, or American kids in basements, to alter U.S. election results. Representative government only works when there is a broad societal consensus on the supremacy of integrity. So another clear path to one world government and the Anti-christ is prominent on the horizon.
Evidence mounts against H Clinton - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Another story has revealed that Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in violation of both Federal government and State Department policy and broke the law as Secretary of State. Circa.com investigative reporters John Solomon and Kellan Howell report that "FBI agents who investigated Hillary Clinton's email collected significant evidence suggesting she and her team violated federal record-keeping laws, including persisting to use a private Blackberry and server to conduct State Department business after being warned they posed legal and security risks." FBI sources told Circa.com that each email that transmitted a government document could be in violation of the Federal Records Act.
Circa reports: "Other federal laws make it a felony to intentionally conceal, remove or destroy federal records as defined under the Act, punishable with a fine and imprisonment of up to three years. A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."...The FBI "indirectly documented hundreds, and likely thousands, of violations of the Records Act," one source with direct knowledge of the FBI's investigation told Circa. Using forensics, the FBI recovered from computer drives and other witnesses about 15,000 emails from Mrs. Clinton's private account that dealt with government business, most that had not been turned over by her or her aides."
The Daily Jot's own investigation of the Clinton email caper reveals that several long-term government sources, who wished to remain anonymous, said that if they had done what Clinton did, they may be in jail. One source said, "that requirement [is] in the US Code of Federal Regulations: 5 CFR 930.301, Subpart C. There is NO excuse for Clinton and staff not to have known they were violating security protocols--they are lying. Executive agencies are required to have this training...the requirement has been around for a long time: This particular CFR was issued Jan 1, 2011. Para (a)(1) states, "All users of Federal Information systems must be exposed to security awareness materials at least annually."
He continued, "Plus paragraph (a)(2) says, "Executives must receive training in information security basics and policy level training in security planning and management." Hillary's position as Secretary of State was a senior executive position. She herself was responsible that she and her staff were appropriately informed and trained. How many years was Hillary the Secretary of State? That's how many times minimum she was exposed to these requirements...Not to mention common sense for a person in that position and who was in the White House for 8 years." Yet, the FBI recommends no prosecution for Clinton. As in Isaiah 59:14, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." But you can enter the voting booth come November.
Your tax money used to enrich Clintons - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
There is apparently no end to the dishonesty of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The email hacks have pulled back the curtain on the Clinton's longstanding dirty deals, exposing what many have known for a long time, but what others refuse to believe. Those who won't suspend their disbelief and look at the truth, believe that the news media and a right-wing conspiracy have fabricated stories about the Clinton corruption, despite the well-documented facts. And they just keep coming in like a flood of deceit. Politico now reports that the Clintons used tax dollars to subsidize the Clinton Foundation, an associated business, and to support Hillary Clinton's controversial email server-in short, you and I paid in part for Clinton corruption.
Politico's investigation found: "Bill Clinton's staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family's foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife's private email server. Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment--including servers--housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign...The thousands of pages of newly uncovered records reveal sometimes granular detail about how Bill Clinton's representatives directed the spending of taxpayer cash allocated by the GSA under the Former President's Act."
Politico found that: Bill Clinton received more money from the Former President's Act than any other living president. After Hillary Clinton claimed to have left the White House "dead broke," the Clintons parleyed their contacts and taxpayer money to accumulate wealth of over $2 billion from their foundation and other businesses. Tax money from the Former President's Act was used to subsidize salaries of Hillary Clinton's aides. But wait, there's more. The Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Trey Gowdy confirmed that Hillary Clinton's lawyers used Bleachbit, a computer software that prevents recovery of files, to delete emails from her personal server. We may have paid for part of that, too.
Notwithstanding, the State Department reports that there are at least another 30 Benghazi documents previously withheld by Clinton. These are the revelations on Clinton that have occurred in just the last two weeks. There are countless other scandals and even deaths associated with the Clintons over the past 30 years. That any sane person can consider this woman and her husband are fit to hold an elected office is beyond reason. Proverbs 29:2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 20:17 says, "Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel." Let's not be chewing on gravel come November 9.
The Pollsters are polling, deceivers deceiving - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Everyday there is a new poll about the upcoming election. People are concerned when the polls are trending away from their candidates. But don't be alarmed. Polling is a science. The candidates themselves commission the best polls. They usually know the real story. To accurately reflect the situation, polls must be taken from a random sample; the questions must be asked in a way that do not bias the answer; and there can be no leading of the interviewee in any direction by the one asking the questions. The polls taken by the news organizations rarely follow these criteria. Their samplings are biased toward what they perceive as a larger Democratic base and the questions are slanted to lead the interviewee.
Last night, I was subjected to a candidate's poll. It didn't even try to mask its bias. The statements it was making about the candidates were incredible. This poll, I believe, was testing how people react to certain attack themes the campaign wanted to employ against its opponent. They were themes along the lines of racism, bigotry, homophobia, putting guns in the hands of the mentally ill, denying a woman's right to an abortion, and so on. The questions started out like this: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Donald Trump if you knew he has supported racism by..." or "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton if you knew she supported the unequivocal right of a women to have an abortion?"
Some of the themes that were tested were so outrageous that I couldn't help but comment that "while I don't believe that is the case, if it were true, I would be less likely to vote for the candidate." Even the one asking the questions started laughing at some of my comments because, he, too, knew the test questions were extreme. The one thing that I saw from this poll that is interesting to note is that the test themes all had a common theme-anyone who would vote for Trump will be labeled a racist and a bigot. Clinton, from the direction of this poll, appears to be seriously considering cornering the voters and dividing them based on racism and bigotry. If you don't want to be labeled a racist, you better vote Hillary.
This is a longstanding political tactic of the Hegelian Dialectic used by communists to move people from what they think to what they want them to think. First, there is the thesis, which is your current way of thinking. Then there is the new thesis, the antithesis which, in this case would be "if you vote for this person you are a racist." Then there is the synthesis, where you think about this and know that you are not a racist, but maybe people think you are, so you vote in a way that you can say you are not a racist. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis-that's what these polls are probing. Discernment is needed to counter these messages so there is no deception. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Exercise your sound mind as led by the Holy Spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.