All Credit: Patel Patriot - BLOG
Notes
If you haven’t read the first four parts of the Devolution series, please do so now here:
I apologize but this article may get confusing at times. I did my best to connect the dots as clearly as I could. If you have any questions or would just like to engage in some Devolution talk, feel free to join my telegram and ask away: https://t.me/patelpatriotchat
This article is a long one but the bombshell at the end will blow your mind.
Critical Infrastructure
President Harry Truman created the National Security Council (NSC) in 1947. Since its founding, every president has issued some form of national security directives. National security directives are usually directed only to the NSC and senior executive branch officials and lay out foreign and military policy-making guidance. Bill Clinton’s Presidential directive PDD-63 of May 1998 started including extensive critical infrastructure protection (CIP). PDD-63 mandated the formation of a national strategy for CIP.
In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, numerous changes took place regarding how we define and operate our CIP. The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26th, 2001 and gave the following definition for critical infrastructure:
The following year (November 25, 2002), the Homeland Security Act was signed into law creating the United States Department of Homeland Security. In 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) which replaced PDD-63 and established the U.S. National Policy for identification of and prioritization of critical infrastructure. HSPD-7 called for The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) which aims to unify Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource (CI/KR) protection efforts across the country. The NIPP's goals are to protect critical infrastructure and key resources and ensure resiliency. It was not an actual plan to be carried out in an emergency, but it was useful as a mechanism for developing coordination between government and the private sector.
The NIPP is structured to create partnerships between Government Coordinating Councils (GCC) from the public sector and Sector Coordinating Councils (SCC) from the private sector. I want to again emphasize that the SCCs are from the private sector.
The NIPP is structured to create partnerships between Government Coordinating Councils (GCC) from the public sector and Sector Coordinating Councils (SCC) from the private sector. I want to again emphasize that the SCCs are from the private sector.
Remember that highlighted part. Read it twice if you have to. The formation of this Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) as FACA-exempt is crucial and I’ll explain why later. One more thing regarding membership of CIPAC:
Again, I want to emphasize that “membership of the CIPAC will consist of: the Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource (CI/KR) owners and operators that are members of their respective sector’s recognized SCC.”
What does any of this have to do with the 2020 election?
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
On January 6th, 2017, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson (Obama’s SHS) released a statement designating “Election Infrastructure” as a “critical infrastructure subsector” within the existing critical infrastructure sector titled: “Government Facilities”. This allowed Election Infrastructure Security to fall under the umbrella of the DHS.
On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 which established the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). According to their own website, “The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is the Nation’s risk advisor, working with partners to defend against today’s threats and collaborating to build more secure and resilient infrastructure for the future.” The CISA website lists all 16 of the critical infrastructure sectors but I want to focus on the Government Facilities Sector because that is where you can find the Election Infrastructure Subsector. The election infrastructure subsector landing page looks like this:
Here is the 2020 Charter Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council Charter-2-9-2020 as shown above. Keep in mind that Sector Coordinating Councils(SCC) are from the private sector and are members of Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC).
Essentially, the EISCC is a council made up of members from the private sector that advises and assists our government with the “physical security, cyber security, and emergency preparedness of the nations election infrastructure”. They do this through “voluntary actions of the infrastructure owners and operators REPRESENTED in the council”.
This means that the members of the EISCC are the actual election infrastructure owners and operators, and they handle the physical security along with the cybersecurity through their own “voluntary actions”.
They “coordinate with the DHS to develop, recommend, and review sector-wide plans, procedures, and effective practices in support of infrastructure protection, including training, education, and implementation”. They also “make recommendations to appropriate authorities to mitigate impediments to effective critical infrastructure security”.
Section 5 of the charter is critical. Focus on the first paragraph below. “The EISCC operates under the critical infrastructure partnership advisory council (CIPAC) framework established by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. §451)”
What exactly is “section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. §451)” I’m going to break this down the best I can.
So the EISCC which we know operates under the CIPAC framework is exempt from Public Law 92-463 (screenshot below) and that law establishes “a system governing the creation and OPERATION of advisory committees.”
So just to make sure this is clear:
DHS has submitted a notice in the federal registry in 2006 (renewed every two years) that CIPAC is exempt from oversight over its creation and operation of advisory committees
The EISCC is operating under the framework of CIPAC.
Therefore, the EISCC is exempt from oversight over its creation and operation.
Now Back to Section 871 (just read the highlighted part):
Here is the section 202 of title 18, USC (most important parts highlighted):
So because the EISCC operates under the framework of CIPAC and is exempt from Public Law 92-463, they are classified as “Special Government Employees”.
Back to Section 871 (just read the highlighted part):
Subsection b(3) of section 208 of Title 18, United States code reads as follows:
So because the EISCC operates under the framework of CIPAC and is exempt from Public Law 92-463 (exempt from oversight), they are classified as “Special Government Employees” and they have been certified that their “services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest created by the financial interest involved.”
This means our government knows there is a “potential for a conflict of interest created by the financial interest involved” for members of the EISCC because the “official responsible for the employee’s appointment” has to certify it. They know there is a conflict of interest for members of the EISCC yet they allow it to operate without oversight.
Why is this so important? Scroll down and check out the member affiliations of the Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council’s 2020 Charter. Try not to shit your pants.
Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic were two of the members of the EISCC which “advises and assists” our government with election security by “coordinating with the DHS to develop, recommend, and review sector-wide plans, procedures, and effective practices in support of infrastructure protection, including training, education, and implementation”. They were also making “recommendations to appropriate authorities to mitigate impediments to effective critical infrastructure security”. Read again the EISCC Mission and Purpose.
Our Government knew there was a conflict of interest because they had to sign a waiver certifying they knew. Yet, the members of the EISCC who were the very companies used for basically every aspect of the 2020 election (machines, ballot printing, etc.) were also in charge of the “physical security, cyber security, and emergency preparedness of the nation’s election infrastructure” and they HAD NO OVERSIGHT.
I’m sure other companies here could be flagged, but Dominion and Smartmatic are my focus because they have been in the spotlight of the 2020 election fraud. If you haven’t yet, read this article from the Epoch Times showing A History of Foreign Ties Behind Voting Machines Used in US.
This revelation sheds new light on this statement from CISA which was released on November 12, 2020. Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, the very companies accused of committing fraud in this election, we’re part of the election infrastructure joint statement claiming “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”
On November 30th, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security renewed the charter again for two more years and with that renewal came the straw that broke the election fraud’s back. If you go back to the main Election Infrastructure Subsector: Charters and Membership landing page and click on the link for the 2021 version of the charter which was released in February, you’ll notice something different.
They changed the name from “Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council” (EISCC) to “Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council” (EIS GCC). It now reads that “EIS GCC membership is composed of government agencies and organizations representing government officials that own, operate, or administer subsector physical or cyber assets, systems, and processes or have responsibility for supporting security and resilience of those assets, systems, and processes.”
No mention of Dominion or Smartmatic. No mention of the private sector companies from 2020 at all.
Can you say cover-up? Where is congress asking questions about this?
Closing
Everything about the 2020 election points to fraudulent activity. The Arizona Senate has subpoenaed the routers from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors but the MCBS has not been cooperating. Why haven’t they turned over the routers? The AZ forensic auditors need to see internet traffic on those routers to see if anything nefarious took place and to finalize their audit.
Refer back to the previously mentioned Epoch Times article and check out this screen shot below from that article:
There is also this article claiming a Swiss bank majority-owned by communist China paid Dominion parent company $400 million. Finally, this reporting from Catherine Herridge stating DNI John Ratcliffe Confirmed There Was Foreign Interference in November Elections: Report (theepochtimes.com)
Let’s put two and two together here.
Dominion Voting Systems was part of the United States Government sanctioned advisory council that was responsible for election infrastructure security, the DHS knew they had a conflict of interest yet let them operate without oversight.
Multiple reports of financial ties between the CCP and Dominion.
As the Epoch Times stated “Dominion’s voting technology is currently used in 28 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, according to the firm’s official website. More than 40 percent of American voters cast their ballots through the Dominion system in general elections, including 65 of Michigan’s 83 counties, all 159 counties in Georgia, and 2.2 million voters in Maricopa, Arizona’s largest county, among others.”
The logical conclusion I come to is that China was able to bypass security measures that Dominion Voting Systems was responsible for implementing, in order to access Dominion Voting Systems own machines resulting in the fraudulent outcome of this election.
That is clearly an act of War, and our own Department of Homeland Security sanctioned it and then covered it up.
Our only saving grace in all of this is the Space Force. Our Military could access those Maricopa county routers without subpoena. They have all the information they need and they have likely had it since November 3rd when they we’re monitoring it live. Trump didn’t leave the security of our election up to CISA and CISA alone. The military was watching.
If Devolution is not real, the only way to rectify this election will be through states decertifying their electors, something that has never been done and something I firmly believe will not work. The Biden administration completely disregarded the will of the American people by colluding with China to steal our election, they will obviously do anything they have to in order to stay in power.
They will not cooperate with the decertification process and will not give up their grasp on power even if every state decertifies.
Devolution has to be real because there is no other way we will ever rid ourselves of the corruption in our government.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME
Comments