By David Codrea
“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,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson claimed. “There’s no one federal election system … There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes.”
Centralized control? Strip power from states, counties and precincts, many of which require voters to identify themselves, a prerequisite the administration (i.e., Johnson’s boss) challenges as “disenfranchising” minorities? What could go wrong?
What won’t Johnson’s Homeland operators be able to do, using “national security” as justification?
And aren’t the Democrats – at least the anti-gun ones seeking to eviscerate preemption (except when it comes to federal edicts) – the ones who then scream “Home rule” the loudest? That could be a problem, because Democrat apparatchik Johnson also views guns as a security threat requiring his enlightened national control as well.
“We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security,” he told “CBS This Morning” following the Orlando nightclub murders. “We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country.”
He was specifically talking about using secret “no fly” lists to deny a fundamental, Constitutionally-enumerated right. In other words, the guy who wants control over that right in the name of security thinks his job would be a lot easier without inconveniences like due process.
He wasn’t talking about who get into the country in the first place, you know, the ones who undergo “rigorous security screening.” As if that’s possible. As if reliable and comprehensive background records for Third World “refugees” even exist.
Keep in mind Johnson is also the guy who claims illegal aliens have “earned the right to be citizens,” another big Democrat campaign point, with “amnesty” being one of Hillary Clinton’s “first 100 days” pledges.
Yeah, right, put him in charge of election oversight. It’s not like there are irreconcilable differences over gun owner control and the “pathway to citizenship.” And it’s not like those are both hot button campaign issues. Right?
This isn’t to say there is no room for additional oversight, particularly with the reported foreign hacking threats. The concern here is putting a career Democrat operative in charge of things, particularly without defining what new powers he’ll assume and especially what independent oversight will be exercised over him.
Many questions haven’t even been thought of, let alone answered, including what level of classified control will be imposed, and what impact that will have on heretofore transparent processes. After seeing Congress effectively stonewalled over Fast and Furious gunwalking, why should we believe they’ll be any more effective or timely in stopping agenda-driven waste, abuse, corruption, fraud, and retaliation against whistleblowers?
Before turning everything over to an Obama functionary in the most important election many of us have ever faced — one that will determine the future of the republic in a way that will either enable or block its “fundamental transformation” — we might want to first determine the answer to the Roman poet Juvenal’s most relevant of questions:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will guard the guards?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.