(LifeSiteNews) — A previous article described how U.S. government entities like the FBI, intelligence community, and even local police might cause election interference by hiding their methods, sources, technologies, techniques, surveillance actions, and other information from Americans.
The Constitution of the United States at least implies that, in part through voting, American citizens – “we the people” – are supposed to be able to determine how the government operates. The FBI, intelligence community, and local police make up a significant portion of local, state, and federal government.
READ: Is the FBI interfering with Americans’ right to vote?
It should be obvious, then, that Americans should be able to determine how entities such as the FBI, intelligence community, and local police operate. Otherwise, it would seem that entities like the FBI, intelligence community, and local police could be described as non-American entities and threats to national security (which implies the U.S. Constitution).
If they do not publish their methods, sources, surveillance technologies, and other actions, though, then Americans cannot determine how they should operate. Thus, information on how the previously described government entities operate is a prerequisite for voting. Refusing to publish their methods, sources, techniques, technologies, surveillance actions, etc., could be said to be interfering with the election process and violation of due process mentioned in the Constitution.
Now, U.S. federal law explains in one section that the definition of the word “vote” “includes all action necessary to make a vote effective.” Broadly speaking, the intended effect of a vote is to support or oppose at least some actions and/or operations of government employees which for this discussion includes politicians, the president, etc. It is probably obvious for many that information on the FBI, intelligence community, local police, and many other security, investigative, or similar entities is a condition necessary for a vote to be effective.
But it is known that many government employees do not allow Americans to know their actions and operations; they “classify” much of their information as secret, confidential, top secret, etc. By keeping their schemes, hoaxes, methods, sources, surveillance, and other operations and actions secret, such government entities almost necessarily interfere with local, state, and/or federal elections. Americans’ votes cannot possibly be “effective” if they do not know the actions of the law enforcement, investigative, intelligence, and similar employees of the government.
It might be easier to arrive at the previous conclusions by asking oneself some questions: first, if the FBI, intelligence community, and local and state police published all of the names of their secret employees and non-paid cooperators and also told Americans their secret methods, techniques, and surveillance technologies, how many Americans would likely vote for politicians who oppose current FBI, State, and local police secret actions?
Or, how many Americans suspect that the FBI, intelligence community, and local police use secret technologies, employees/sources, or methods that the majority of America would vote against if they were publicized?
For example, if Americans knew that the FBI and local police are still using a surveillance technology which can “see into” homes, buildings, and cars and surveil every move Americans make at every moment of their life, is it likely that Americans would make that issue their main focus to vote against? Americans would likely vote not only against such entities and surveillance technologies, but Americans would likely vote for severe punishments for those who produce, supply, operate, and know about others’ operating such surveillance technologies.
And how about this question: if Americans knew the secret operations, methods, technologies, and employees of the FBI, police, and other security entities, is it likely that Americans would vote differently than they currently vote? One could reasonably suggest that the actions, sources, etc. of the previously mentioned government entities would be the most important voting issue of the majority of America. Non-government employed Americans would likely even unite against the methods, sources, techniques, technologies, etc. of such entities.
In other words, if government entities like the FBI, intelligence community, etc. do not fraudulently change votes with voting technology, are they almost necessarily changing the results of elections by not informing Americans of their secret methods, technologies, surveillance, employees, etc.?
Another example might be helpful here. If you discovered that the FBI or local police employed several people who you know to be vengeful, psychopaths, drunkards, druggies, etc., would you vote for a politician who promises to get rid of such corruption within those entities? Or would you vote for politicians who promise to discontinue all secret government entities like the FBI and intelligence community (which are part of the Executive Branch of government) due to their potential use of deadly and torturous secret remotely controlled weapons?
But because one does not know the names of secret government employees, one is unable to vote for or against the current actions and sources of the FBI, local police, etc.
READ: Is the FBI illegally spying on private homes and buildings?
And the previous examples lead to another possible conclusion: the secrecy of local and state police, the intelligence community, and the FBI almost necessarily causes voting discrimination. This is because the potentially millions of secret FBI, intelligence community, and local police employees know many of the secret technologies, techniques, methods, sources, surveillance, and other actions of the FBI, intelligence community, and local police.
Employees of the aforementioned entities have knowledge that other American voters do not have; this almost necessarily results in unfair and discrimination in voting. Those government employees can vote for politicians that will keep them employed, while most Americans might vote against such politicians if they had the same information. In a way it also seems to be discrimination in employment; government employees can keep themselves employed only due to the secret information they have, while non-government employees do not have such employment or secret information.
For example, if Americans discovered that the FBI or local police put plain-clothed employees in every stadium in America during every sporting event with the function of surveilling, stalking, or otherwise harassing targeted people in the crowd to attempt to provoke an angry response, Americans might vote for such operations and employees to be discontinued and punished. Then there is also the possibility of plain-clothed FBI or local police employees in every Catholic Church in America during every Mass performing the same function of attempting to provoke or otherwise stalk people in Church.
Thus, the secrets of the FBI, intelligence community, and local police appear to almost necessarily cause election fraud and discrimination. Unfortunately, it is known that government employees and politicians try to destroy or ignore the U.S. Constitution through enacting federal or local laws; for example, government might deliberately enact laws requiring classifying information of the FBI all while knowing the laws are unconstitutional. The common American cannot challenge those laws in part because government employees can basically use as much money and time as necessary to defend their corruption in court while the common American does not have the time or money to challenge such corruption. A similar strategy is described in an election law reference book:
Until 1964, Southern state officials bent on denying blacks political power could exact enormous costs on opposition forces simply by requiring plaintiffs to litigate. A plaintiff wishing to put a stop to unconstitutionally discriminatory limits on the right to vote, for example, would have to spend resources pursuing a court case. Even if successful in court, however, the state could simply replace the challenged law with another discriminatory one, and by staying one step ahead of plaintiffs, the state could significantly delay compliance. (Page 225)
Such a method might still be used in several ways by those government employees who may be participating in crimes, discrimination, election fraud, etc.
US federal campaign finance laws require publishing information
The previous discussion is not as controversial as some might suggest. There are federal laws already in force which require publishing information during the election process. Such laws are sometimes described as “campaign finance laws” which, in part, require candidate committees, political party committees, and others to file reports which describe the sources and methods of the money they raise and spend. Most or all of those reports, of course, are then required by U.S. federal law to be published online. It is apparently implied that information on the methods and sources of financing political candidates is, for many, most, or all voters, a necessary condition for a vote to be effective.
Consider a hypothetical example. A presidential candidate receives significant donations from China, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Planned Parenthood, Mexican Drug Cartels, ISIS, government-forced injection producers, and groups which violently oppose eating beef and pork. Many voters probably do not want their vote to have the effect of supporting the previous entities through voting for a presidential candidate who is likely to do what the previous entities want him or her to do. Voters would likely consider such information a necessary condition to making the voting decision. Voters might deliberately not vote for, or they might vote against, such a presidential candidate based solely on the previous financial information; not publishing such information would easily result in what would likely be described as a fraudulent election.
Continue with the previous example; say that there are American government employees in the FBI, intelligence community, and local police who know that the previous hypothetical candidate is funded by the previously mentioned entities; they receive the information not through surveillance but through communications only provided to government employees. Say that such government employees are also voters, and such government employees will only continue their employment in the government if the previously mentioned hypothetical candidate is elected. A different president would result in them losing their government job. Is it discrimination in voting if only the government employees are provided such information while the common American voter is not provided such information?
Again, continue with the previous example. Campaign finance laws require publication of information of the sources (names of the people or political organizations) who give money. Such people might say, “publishing my information puts my life at risk!” much like people in the FBI, intelligence community, and local police say that publishing the sources and methods puts lives at risk. But the federal campaign finance laws are still on the books and still require publication of the names of the sources even if it is risky.
In other words, the excuse of the FBI, intelligence community, and local police of “publishing information puts lives at risk!” is a weak excuse, especially since many employees of those government entities have ways to defend themselves that the common American does not have and they also have governmental immunity which the common American does not have
READ: Democratic congressman suggested falsifying a pandemic to push vaccination
Thus, the federal campaign finance laws at least partially serve the purpose of requiring the publication of information, which is apparently an action necessary for a vote to be effective. It appears to be implied to be part of the voting process and/or election process.
Now again refer to requiring the publication of information on the methods, sources, technologies, techniques, surveillance, and other actions and operations of the FBI, intelligence community, local police, investigative, and any other similar entity. One might be able to determine that not only is requiring the publication of such information not controversial but that not publishing such information almost necessarily causes fraudulent elections and discrimination; election results are likely to be much different if Americans knew the current, previous, and future actions of the FBI, intelligence community, local police, etc.
At least one necessary remedy to the situation is to require the publication of current and previous methods, sources (including government employees and non-employees), technologies, techniques, surveillance, hoaxes, schemes, ruses, and any other action and inaction of the FBI, intelligence community, local police, and any other similar law enforcement, investigative, or security entity in America.
While it is not the main subject of this article, the remedy is likely to require publication of both current and previous methods, sources, surveillance technologies, hoaxes, schemes, etc. because those are relevant to how Americans vote in elections for many years in the future. It is necessary to know whether Democrat or Republican politicians (or both) were responsible for previous actions, hoaxes, schemes, methods, sources, etc.
For example, all government employee actions, hoaxes, secret national security exercises, and schemes around the time of the Vietnam War, September 11, 2001, and December 2019 – January 2022 are relevant for Americans’ voting decisions now and for many years in the future. (It might be relevant to observe how many U.S. government national security terrorism exercises were ongoing prior to September 11, 2001, similar to the government national security exercises for pandemics which led up to what was reported as the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, such things could be merely coincidence.)
And the previously mentioned remedy is to instill the proper due process and fairness in voting in local, state, and federal elections. Other remedies are going to be necessary for justice for victims of the crimes of government employees in the FBI, intelligence community, local police, investigative, and similar entities which result from their methods, sources, techniques, surveillance technologies, etc.