Homeland Security wants to “secure” the elections. Why now, all of a sudden? One would think the topic should have come up back in 2001. Does DHS want more public trust? More than motive, DHS is redefining it’s value. DHS is gambling.
By claiming that elections need DHS, DHS is claiming that the elections are in need of help. By helping these “needy” elections, DHS is claiming that it’s value and effectiveness now depends on the continuation of those elections.
So, with this DHS move, if the elections don’t happen, Washington should scrap DHS.
DHS either doesn’t see any threat and just wants to claim “elections” as another reason to justify its growing existence, or else DHS does see a real, true, dangerous threat that it’s not telling us about and DHS may be the actual reason this next election succeeds at all. We may never know.
In military humor, with DHS “securing” elections, at least it won’t be the Marines trying to “secure” them.
The topic of “takeover” wasn’t limited to DHS and elections this week. With Amazon’s SpaceX rocket destroying Facebook’s 150 pound (currency, not weight) satellite, corporate takeovers will slow down some.
Police in Ferguson, MO are having a hard time hiring—proving that Obama’s police policies have certainly failed to result in “good police”, the result, instead, being “no police”. At least, Symphony would like to think that Obama considers “no police” to be a failure. Clinton should say it’s a failure. Limbaugh might say otherwise. Either way, so much for Obama’s takeover of police. There just aren’t any to take over these days, you see.
Now, we find that Soros may have actually been behind the Obama-police takeover. That also failed as much as it was exposed.
Hillary’s takeover of nearly everything is also being exposed. Pacific Daily Times ignores Hillary news for the most part, otherwise stories of her corruption might dominate every headline.
Then, we go back to the timing of DHS’s announcement and related stories. WND replied with expected skepticism, about a week later also as expected. But, more interestingly, an article from US News headlined about the possible “death” of a candidate before the election. However, the entire article was a mere “if-then” statement of information the public has known for a long time. It said nothing about any reason to believe that a candidate might actually die before the election. And, also interestingly, it was released the same day Examiner discussed DHS.
One would think that whatever or whoever wanted DHS to take over elections also has fingers in the media, but not for any conspiracy evidence. It’s just an indication of news savvy. “If-then” scenarios just aren’t news. But, non-news influences don’t know that.