Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Is the US intelligence apparatus preparing the public for future election interference?

Published

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Is the warning perhaps not what it seems? Is it an attempt to provide camouflage — a strategy known as ‘pre-bunking’ — for future election interference sanctioned by the Washington political machine?

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) together with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a joint statement ostensibly intended to assure U.S. voters in advance that the 2024 election that, despite anticipated attacks on the country’s voting systems that might make getting election information hard for citizens to obtain, election results would nonetheless be unaffected and election integrity would be maintained.

The FBI is responsible for investigating and prosecuting election crimes and malicious cyber activity targeting election infrastructure. The CISA plays a role in securing election infrastructure from physical and cyber threats.

The joint statement, however, has been met with skepticism based on the earlier roles of both agencies in past elections and their participation in massive suppression of conservative voices in social media.

As such, is the warning perhaps not what it seems? Is it an attempt to provide camouflage — a strategy known as “pre-bunking” — for future election interference sanctioned by the Democrat-powered Washington political machine — a.k.a., the Deep State — that wants to maintain control of the White House and Congress at any cost?

“CISA & FBI issue bulletin that upcoming cyberattacks may ‘prevent the public from receiving timely information’ about the 2024 election,” conservative commentator Emerald Robinson wrote on X.

“These same agencies told you: America’s voting machines were never connected to the Internet,” Robinson noted.

Jeanette Manfra, Acting Under Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security, told Congress in 2017 that America’s voting machines “are not connected to the internet.”

Manfra was responsible for the security of the nation’s voting system. Yet according to a 2020 report by NBC News, a team of 10 cybersecurity experts who specialize in voting systems and elections found nearly three dozen U.S. voting systems connected to the internet.

“We found over 35 (voting systems) had been left online and we’re still continuing to find more,” Kevin Skoglund, a senior technical adviser at the election security advocacy group National Election Defense Coalition, told NBC News at the time.

“We kept hearing from election officials that voting machines were never on the internet,” Skoglund said. “And we knew that wasn’t true. And so we set out to try and find the voting machines to see if we could find them on the internet, and especially the back-end systems that voting machines in the precinct were connecting to report their results.”

Can CISA be trusted?

“CISA has worked with Big Tech corporations to silence Americans since 2020,” noted Logan Washburn, writing at The Federalist last month. “A congressional report from last fall found it had become a “domestic intelligence and speech-police agency” whose behavior was ‘unconstitutional.’”

Last year, the Biden administration blocked the release of documents “revealing the extent to which deep state actors and their third-party allies interfered in the 2020 presidential election by pushing social media censorship,” according to a Breitbart report.

“The government seems particularly eager to stop the release of documents pertaining to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the closely linked Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), both of which are under intense scrutiny for their 2020 interference efforts,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari wrote.

Bokhari reported in May 2023 on the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on the government’s “laundering” of censorship through NGOs and private entities:

In the runup to the 2020 election, the consortium created a system whereby state actors including the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department could file “tickets” alongside news stories, flagging them so that Big Tech platforms could subsequently suppress or attach warning labels to them.

Beyond this blatant case of a private-public censorship coalition, the EIP also engaged in partisan politics, allowing the Democratic National Committee to file tickets through the system, as well as the Democrat-aligned groups Common Cause and the NAACP.

News outlets targeted by the EIP included Breitbart News, Fox News, the New York Post, and the Epoch Times, as well as the social media accounts of prominent conservatives Charlie Kirk, Tom Fitton, Jack Posobiec, Mark Levin, James O’Keefe, and Sean Hannity, amongst others.

President Donald Trump was also frequently flagged by the consortium, as well as his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

In April, The Washington Examiner noted the connection of CISA and the suppression of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story just weeks before the election, which no doubt had a big impact on the election’s outcome, in favor of leftist Joe Biden and against incumbent Republican Donald Trump:

On Oct. 14, 2020, hours after the New York Post published a story based on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop that Twitter blocked from being shared online, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center reached out to “misinformation” researchers behind the Election Integrity Partnership, a collaboration between universities, left-wing think tanks, social media companies, and the U.S. government to thwart alleged falsehoods online in the lead-up to the presidential election. That outreach from the GEC, a foreign-focused office Republican lawmakers are investigating for its ties to anti-speech projects in the United States, was apparently thanks to guidance from the DHS and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, according to internal documents.

The newly unearthed coordination underscores the major role that CISA, an agency under scrutiny from the House GOP for allegedly colluding “with Big Tech and ‘disinformation’ partners to censor Americans” in 2020, played in the Election Integrity Partnership, or EIP. Both CISA and Alex Stamos, who directed the Stanford Internet Observatory, a Stanford University office behind the EIP, have appeared to downplay CISA’s role in the partnership despite some since-released records indicating a closer relationship than previously known, the Washington Examiner reported.

CISA and the FBI: paving the way for domestic election interference?

“With Election Day less than 100 days away, it is important to help put into context some of the incidents the American public may see during the election cycle that, while potentially causing some minor disruptions, will not fundamentally impact the security or integrity of the democratic process,” CISA senior advisor Cait Conley said.

“DDoS attacks are one example of a tactic that we have seen used against election infrastructure in the past and will likely see again in the future, but they will NOT affect the security or integrity of the actual election. They may cause some minor disruptions or prevent the public from receiving timely information,” Conley suggested.

“It is important to talk about these potential issues now, because nefarious actors, like our foreign adversaries or cybercriminals, could use DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) incidents to cast doubt on the election systems or processes,” Conley said.

“Congress is still exposing the extent of the detailed coordination platform between Big Tech platforms and the Censorship Industrial Complex,” noted Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, in April. “Rather than promote free speech and free expression, this partnership was dedicated to denying it to those it did not favor.”

Questions remain: Did government agencies facilitate cheating and lie to the American people in 2020 in order to drag Biden across the finish line? Are they preparing to unconstitutionally install Kamala Harris in 2024?

Featured Image

Doug Mainwaring is a journalist for LifeSiteNews, an author, and a marriage, family and children’s rights activist.  He has testified before the United States Congress and state legislative bodies, originated and co-authored amicus briefs for the United States Supreme Court, and has been a guest on numerous TV and radio programs.  Doug and his family live in the Washington, DC suburbs.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

espionage

Democracy Betrayed, The Scathing Truth Behind Canada’s Foreign Interference Report

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

A damning report reveals years of inaction, secrecy, and complicity as foreign actors targeted elections and silenced communities under Trudeau’s watch

If you want to understand the slow, deliberate erosion of Western democracy, look no further than Canada. A newly released report on foreign interference in Canadian elections is a damning indictment of how a nation’s leadership can be so corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly that it allows foreign powers—most notably China—to undermine its democratic institutions while pretending to govern in the public’s interest. The so-called leader of this disgrace? Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, despite recently announcing his resignation, continues to embody everything wrong with modern governance: self-interest, spinelessness, and contempt for the very people he was elected to serve.

The report, spanning over a hundred pages, exposes the extent of foreign interference in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 federal elections. But don’t let the dry language and bureaucratic jargon fool you—this isn’t just an academic exercise. This is the story of how a sitting prime minister and his enablers knowingly allowed foreign actors to meddle in the political process, smear opposition candidates, intimidate diaspora communities, and effectively shape the narrative to their benefit.

So let’s get into the details, because, unlike Trudeau and his lackeys, I actually believe in transparency.


China’s Election Meddling: A Case Study in Cowardice

First, let’s talk about the obvious elephant in the room: China. The report doesn’t shy away from stating what we’ve all known for years—China is actively working to undermine Canada’s democracy. The Communist Party of China (CCP) has its hands deep in Canadian politics, and the interference isn’t limited to election periods. According to the report, Beijing’s strategies include manipulating diaspora communities, intimidating critics, spreading disinformation, and even using proxies to influence nomination contests within Canadian political parties.

Take the case of Han Dong, a Liberal candidate in the 2019 election for Don Valley North. Intelligence suggests that PRC officials were involved in irregularities during his nomination process. Buses of international students were allegedly brought in to vote for Dong using falsified documents, all under the direction of CCP-linked operatives. This wasn’t just a small-town scandal; this was a coordinated effort to place Beijing’s preferred candidate into Canada’s Parliament.

The same tactics played out in 2021. Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and MP Kenny Chiu were directly targeted by Chinese-language disinformation campaigns. O’Toole was smeared as a “Canadian Trump,” and Chiu, who dared to propose a foreign influence registry, became the target of coordinated attacks from CCP-linked media. The aim was clear: scare Chinese-Canadian voters away from the Conservatives. The Liberals, conveniently, benefitted from this interference.

Trudeau’s Response: Silence, Secrecy, and Self-Preservation

The government’s handling—or rather, its non-handling—of foreign interference is a case study in cowardice and self-interest. According to the report, intelligence agencies like CSIS raised the alarm about foreign actors meddling in Canada’s elections. They gathered detailed evidence, flagged specific instances of disinformation, and even briefed Trudeau himself. But what did Trudeau do with this critical information? Nothing. Not a statement, not a warning, not even a hint to the Canadian public that their democracy was under attack.

This wasn’t a failure of intelligence; it was a failure of leadership. CSIS fulfilled its duty, providing the necessary information to those in power. Yet Trudeau and his government chose to suppress the truth. Why? Because confronting the issue head-on would have exposed just how much his Liberals benefited from this interference.

And here’s the kicker: the mechanisms designed to protect democracy didn’t just fail—they were rigged to fail. Take the so-called Panel of Five, the bureaucratic body tasked with determining whether threats to elections warrant public disclosure. This group of unelected senior officials, operating under vague thresholds and unclear criteria, decided that Beijing’s activities during both the 2019 and 2021 elections didn’t meet the standard for public disclosure.

Think about that for a second. Intelligence agencies reported that Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-linked operatives were actively meddling in Canada’s elections—spreading lies about opposition candidates, manipulating diaspora communities, and amplifying CCP propaganda. Yet the Trudeau government deemed this not worth telling the Canadian people. The Panel of Five essentially became a firewall, shielding the Liberals from accountability under the guise of maintaining public confidence.

The absurdity doesn’t stop there. After the 2021 election, the Conservative Party compiled evidence of a targeted disinformation campaign against its candidates and sent it to government officials. This wasn’t hearsay—it was a detailed dossier, backed by intelligence and media analysis. What did the Trudeau government do with it? They shrugged. They didn’t investigate further. They didn’t acknowledge the findings. They didn’t even bother to respond substantively. Why? Because that disinformation campaign served their interests.

Let’s be clear about what this means. The Trudeau government, knowing full well that foreign actors were undermining Canada’s democracy, chose to stay silent because the interference helped them win. This isn’t just negligence—it’s complicity. Trudeau and his Liberals actively benefited from the chaos sown by Beijing, and they were perfectly content to let it continue as long as it worked in their favor.

It’s no wonder Trudeau has been so cagey about foreign interference. His government has gone out of its way to bury the issue, hiding behind classified documents and vague statements about “national security.” The report exposes this strategy for what it is: a deliberate effort to suppress the truth and avoid accountability. The Liberals’ refusal to act wasn’t about protecting Canadians—it was about protecting themselves.

Now, let’s talk about the broader implications of this. By choosing secrecy and inaction, Trudeau didn’t just fail to defend Canadian democracy—he actively undermined it. Every time his government ignored intelligence or dismissed concerns, they sent a clear message to foreign actors: Canada is an easy target. Want to manipulate elections? Go right ahead. Want to intimidate Canadian citizens? Be our guest. The government won’t stop you, and they certainly won’t tell anyone about it.

This isn’t leadership. This is betrayal. Trudeau’s decision to prioritize political expediency over national security is a stain on his legacy and a threat to Canada’s future. His silence, his secrecy, and his self-preservation have left the country vulnerable, its democratic institutions weakened, and its people in the dark.

The Trudeau government’s inaction on foreign interference is one of the most shameful episodes in modern Canadian history. It’s a stark reminder that when leaders prioritize their own interests over those of their country, the consequences are catastrophic. The question now is whether Canadians will demand accountability—or whether they’ll let this betrayal go unanswered.

A Government That Betrays Its People

Let’s not mince words here: Justin Trudeau’s government didn’t just fail Canadians—it betrayed them. The foreign interference report exposes this betrayal in excruciating detail. It’s not just about what Trudeau did, like turning a blind eye to Beijing’s meddling in Canadian elections. It’s about what he refused to do. He refused to defend Canada’s democracy when it needed defending most. He refused to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) when they targeted and intimidated Canadian citizens. And he refused to lead when diaspora communities were crying out for protection against foreign repression on Canadian soil.

Let’s start with the facts laid bare by the report. Chinese-Canadian communities weren’t just affected by foreign interference—they were targeted. Beijing’s agents used fear, manipulation, and outright threats to control the narrative in these communities. Families were warned that voting for candidates critical of the CCP could bring repercussions for their relatives back in China. Activists who dared to speak out against Beijing were silenced, their voices drowned out by a well-organized campaign of intimidation. This wasn’t subtle. This wasn’t covert. This was blatant repression, happening right under Trudeau’s nose.

What’s worse, the report makes clear that this wasn’t just a side effect of interference; it was a strategy. The CCP didn’t just want to influence elections—they wanted to control entire communities. By sowing fear, they discouraged Chinese-Canadians from participating in the democratic process. They wanted to isolate critics, marginalize dissenters, and send a message: if you speak against us, we will come for you and your family. And what did the Trudeau government do in response? Nothing. Not a word. Not a single meaningful action.

This is more than a failure. It’s a dereliction of duty. Trudeau loves to preach about human rights on the world stage, posing for photo ops and lecturing other leaders about the moral high ground. Yet when Beijing came into his own backyard and trampled the rights of Canadian citizens, he stayed silent. Where was his outrage? Where was his condemnation? Nowhere to be found. Trudeau’s inaction sends a clear message to every foreign power looking to exploit Canada: our government will not stand up for its people.

And then there’s the secrecy. Oh, the secrecy. The report claims to promote “transparency,” but most of the critical information remains classified. What Canadians are left with is a series of vague summaries and sanitized conclusions. The government doesn’t trust you to handle the truth. They think you’re too fragile, too uninformed, or maybe just too unimportant to be told what’s really going on.

This isn’t just insulting—it’s dangerous. Secrecy creates a vacuum where misinformation and distrust thrive. It leaves Canadians in the dark about the threats to their democracy, while allowing foreign powers to operate unchecked. And let’s be clear: the Trudeau government’s obsession with secrecy isn’t about protecting national security. It’s about protecting themselves. They don’t want you to see how badly they’ve handled this, how deeply they’ve failed.

What Canadians deserve—and what they’re not getting—is leadership. Real leadership. The kind of leadership that prioritizes the safety, dignity, and rights of its citizens over political expediency. The kind of leadership that takes a stand against foreign bullies instead of kowtowing to them. Trudeau has proven, time and time again, that he is incapable of this. And now, as he prepares to exit stage left, he’s leaving behind a broken system and a government more concerned with maintaining power than defending democracy.

Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking this problem will disappear when Trudeau does. His enablers are still in power. The Liberal Party isn’t just complicit in this failure—it’s the architect of it. Trudeau’s culture of weakness, secrecy, and corruption has infected the entire party. And if you think the new leader will be any different, you’re deluding yourself. This isn’t about one man. It’s about an entire system that has failed Canadians at every level.

The report calls for a “whole-of-society” response to foreign interference. That sounds nice, doesn’t it? Very bureaucratic. Very official. But let’s be honest about what that really means. It’s a way of passing the buck. It’s the government’s way of saying, “This isn’t just our problem—it’s everyone’s problem.” But it’s not everyone’s problem. It’s the government’s job to defend democracy. It’s their responsibility to protect citizens from foreign threats. And if they can’t—or won’t—do the job, then they need to be replaced with people who will.

This is a wake-up call for Canadians. It’s time to demand accountability. Trudeau may be on his way out, but his resignation doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for this mess. Nor does it excuse the failures of his party. The Liberals need to answer for their inaction, their secrecy, and their complicity in allowing foreign interference to thrive.

If you care about Canada’s future—if you care about democracy—then the time to act is now. This isn’t just about protecting elections. It’s about protecting the very foundation of what it means to be Canadian. It’s about standing up for your rights, your voice, and your country. And it starts with holding this government accountable for its betrayal.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Energy

Trump’s Administration Can Supercharge America’s Energy Comeback Even Further

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Curtis Schube

One of the first executive orders President Trump issued was “Unleashing American Energy.”

It begins an effort to undo the harm caused by the Biden administration’s unprecedented assault on the American energy sector. It overturns President Biden’s own destructive executive orders, including those canceling oil leases and prioritizing environmental regulations over the good of the economy and producing reliable energy.

It also orders that unduly burdensome energy regulations be rescinded. Trump’s EO forthrightly states that its goal is to encourage energy production “to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader.”

This executive order takes the nation in a whole new direction. It orders the agencies to audit their policies to weed out burdensome regulations that impact energy development. It terminates the infamous Green New Deal. It prioritizes employment and economic impacts in energy policy. It also revokes a Jimmy Carter Executive Order to reduce the burden on environmental studies that notoriously hold up energy projects.

One reform that met less pomp and circumstance, but is not lacking in impact, is permitting reform. President Trump’s Order instructs agencies to “eliminate all delays within their respective permitting processes including … the use of general permitting and permit by rule.”

This type of permitting reform should impact all American lives for the better. We all know how difficult permits can be to obtain, even if on a smaller scale than energy. When making an addition to a house, for example, one must submit it to government and pray that everything is correct.

Then, the waiting game begins as the government reviews the application, requires possible alterations at the its whim, then, eventually at some point, the project can move forward. It can be expensive and time consuming, and sometimes may deter people from even trying.

The same applies on a larger scale. Permits for major projects, like an oil well, can take years, even a decade or longer, to jump through all of the hoops. And, as the federal government is the gatekeeper to many different varieties of activities that require a permit, whoever is in charge of the executive branch can cripple a project.

Permits by rule and  general permits simplify the process drastically and ease the burden on both the applicant and the government. They are simple and predictable. For both types of permits, the government will first pre-determine the required criteria for someone to meet before the permitted conduct can commence. The government will promulgate the standards for all to see and know.

The applicant, knowing exactly what is required to perform the permitted conduct, can get a project moving quickly. For a general permit, no contact with the government is even needed. A permittee can begin a project so long as it satisfies the pre-set standards.

For a permit by rule, the applicant simply has to certify to the government, in writing, that all the criteria have been met. In response, the government can only check to see if the correct certifications are made and then either approve it or return the certifications with an explanation of which ones are not met. This is done in a short period of time, such as 30 days.

In both cases, the government has no discretion on a case-by-case basis. Instead of focusing its efforts as a gatekeeper for permits, the government will only focus on permittees who have not met the criteria, but after the permittee has begun its project. The government’s role is focused on enforcement actions.

Both sides benefit from this system. For those who behave correctly, the permitting process does not hold up projects. For the government, the resource drain for overseeing permitting is drastically reduced. The government only has to focus its attention on the minority of parties.

This system also has a built-in deterrent. If a permittee were to begin a project, only to have the government shut the project down at a later time through an enforcement action, the permittee would lose a significant investment.

The true benefit is to the American people. If energy companies can have a quick and expedited form of permitting, then the supply of energy can expand quicker. This makes the cost of energy, and all products, cheaper. In the wake of natural disasters, rebuilding can happen quicker. Infrastructure can be put in place faster. The benefits go on and on.

Permitting reform, such as that referenced in President Trump’s Executive Order, is a fantastic first step toward a more efficient government. His agencies should take full advantage and convert as many permits as possible to a permit by rule or general permit as soon as possible.

Curtis Schube is the Executive Director for Council to Modernize Governance, a think tank committed to making the administration of government more efficient, representative, and restrained. He is formerly a constitutional and administrative law attorney.

Continue Reading

Trending

X