When Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, offered federal "help" to states to secure their voting systems from hackers, it was met with a collective yawn from American voters.

Why?

Because Americans have become all-too-conditioned to the notion that the federal government is omniscient, omnipresent and authorized to involve itself in every facet of U.S. life.

It's the way they've been mis-educated for generations. It's the result you would expect when the Big Media "watchdogs" become little more propagandists for unlimited central government. It's what you get when the party that calls itself "Republican" long ago became virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats who act is if the federal government is the only kind of government that exists in America.

What's wrong with the federal government involving itself further in the voting process?

TRENDING: Support for Black Lives Matter sees massive plunge, polls say

Very simply, it's not in the Constitution.

But when has that ever stopped Washington from sticking its nose in matters specifically reserved to the states?

Experience more of Joseph Farah's no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

So here's a little civics lesson for the low-information voters:

There is no federal authority to control or secure elections. It is reserved for each state to administer its own elections, restricted only by constitutional protections for voting rights. The federal government is already too involved in setting complex campaign finance laws that often diminish free-speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those same laws have been used selectively to punish those the controlling powers don't like – for example, Dinesh D'Souza. We don't need Washington meddling to any greater degree in elections.

The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to administer elections, and to determine the qualifications of all voters in both state and federal elections. Congress only has authority over the time, place and manner of federal elections, and any attempt by the federal government to take over the administration of elections should be viewed as unconstitutional.

The federal government has been the victim of some of the greatest hacks in the history of the world. Take, for instance, the example of last year's compromise of a database containing sensitive information about every single federal government employee and contractor since records were kept. Should states be looking for help in securing voting infrastructure from amateurs like this – or, worse yet, like Hillary Clinton?

One of the strengths of the American election system is that there is no national network or infrastructure that can be taken down. Get the federal government involved, and you provide a bigger and more vulnerable target for the hackers. Am I wrong, or wasn't the National Security Agency recently hacked?

The federal government has done literally nothing to secure the most vulnerable and important infrastructure in the country – namely the power grid. Should the grid go down for a long period of time, tens of millions would die agonizing deaths due to starvation, exposure, dehydration and associated chaos and violence. That's what a congressional report found more than a decade ago. What has Washington done about securing that critical infrastructure to date? Nothing. But, just like that, federal officials seem to be salivating to get their hands on control of elections. Ask yourself why.

I'll tell you why. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The trend in America for far too long has been to centralize authority in Washington, at the expense of the states and the sovereign citizens of the nation.

It's got to stop somewhere. It's time to draw some lines in the sand.

But there's another reason – one more urgent and timely – to draw it right here and right now.

The 2016 presidential election is the most divisive and stratifying in modern history.

The Washington establishment has chosen its candidate – Hillary Clinton, one who has a demonstrated record of failure and contempt when it comes to national security matters with her own personal behavior.

It's not as if the Washington establishment is a disinterested party in the outcome of this election.

That's why it must be hands off even the appearance of involvement.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].

