You have not enabled cookies! This site requires cookies to operate properly. Please enable cookies, and refresh your browser for full functionality.
Featured Image
FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 12, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

(LifeSiteNews) — The main subject of this article is the obvious need for Congress and the president to enact several laws to protect the common American citizen from local and federal government officials who often act secretly or do not identify themselves in public as secret police or law enforcement and have attempted to give themselves too much control over Americans.

A preliminary discussion is necessary before getting to the main points. First, those who have read previous articles know that U.S. Federal or local laws do not protect the American citizen if the Department of Justice, the FBI, local police, secret police and others are allowed to commit crimes which they describe as “otherwise illegal activity;” this especially includes crimes committed by the FBI, local police, and secret police which use lying, hoaxes, and propagating other false or misleading information 

Next, there is the distinction between governing laws and God’s Laws. Some laws from government are necessary but a society or country is not going to be truly just and free, or close to truly just and free, if it does not promote and follow the Ten Commandments with Fear of the Lord as those subjects are accurately taught in authentic Catholicism. This requires truth, as several have written, “Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another.”

It is going to be explained throughout this article, but government employees lying, propagating false information, hoaxes, and using secret surveillance are clearly contrary to the Ten Commandments, but they also should be contrary to the U.S. Constitution which protects against “unreasonable searches;” lying is anti-truth, anti-truth is anti-reason. Lying is unreasonable. Thus, lying by law enforcement, the intelligence community, and any other government entity constitutes an unreasonable search. 

Coordinated lying by government is actually a torture strategy or method. Previous articles explained that communist countries actually developed a torture strategy, which was then apparently used by the FBI and similar entities in America and is based on the opposite of the previous statement that humans cannot live with one another if they are not truthful to one another; making everything a lie or falsified scheme, hoax, ruse, ploy, etc., in a targeted person’s life is a type of torture.  

It is a coordinated community stalking method developed by communists known as “Zersetzung.” It was also described more recently by psychology experts as “torture.” This is in part because the targeted person knows that almost every person that the target interacts with is acting out a pre-planned lie, scheme, hoax, ruse, ploy, etc., but those acting out the lies deny this obvious fact. The targeted person accurately describes reality whereas those acting out the lies are deliberately denying reality in attempt to get the targeted person to get angry or otherwise experience suffering and pain in the brain. And the coordinated stalking schemes cause prolonged mental suffering and ultimately “disrupt profoundly” one’s personality. The word “Zersetzung” means “decomposition,” and decomposition includes disruption. 

Basically, it is implied throughout this article that while the Laws of God as taught in authentic Catholicism are required for a just and free society, some laws by government are also necessary specifically those laws that protect the citizen from evil, and often secretly operating, employees or officials within the government. 

Who would oppose Congress making brain surveillance and/or torture technologies and strategies illegal? 

Previous articles described U.S. Federal government “biosurveillance” laws and a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” which could be attempts at legalizing advanced technologies which literally “mind read” and/or might be able to at least partially control human thoughts and/or emotions and thus would clearly be a type of remote and covert torture. Those who object to those suggestions might say that the government’s use of the word “biosurveillance” in laws simply means the U.S. government counting the number of people with a disease in America. 

If “biosurveillance,” “neurological surveillance,” and similar human body and/or brain surveillance “systems” in America are simply “counting the number of people with a disease,” then why doesn’t Congress and the president simply make it illegal for any person, government entity, etc. to engage in remote and covert spying with any advanced innovative technologies or methods which could also be described as “biosurveillance,” “brain surveillance,” or something similar?  

Why not make it illegal to use or engage in any technology, strategy, or method which surveils and/or affects the human brain and/or body? (Specific wording of laws would be more thorough).

Why not prohibit advanced technologies which can remotely cause home appliances or other items to make noises, which, when combined with technologies which “see into” homes, may be used as a type of stalking? 

Why not require federal and local laws to use the word “surveillance” to describe what most people know it to mean a type of spying whereas “counting the number of people with a disease” is prevalence, incidence, etc.? 

Why would it be a big deal for Congress to protect Americans from potentially psychopathic or sociopathic FBI, secret police, law enforcement, “national security,” or other surveillance government officials and their advanced innovative surveillance or biosurveillance technologies which might be in use now or are likely possible in the future?  

Such technologies could be used as torture. Who would oppose such laws which are meant to protect the common American from torture by government employees, unless one is employed by the government and is already using such technologies? 

In other words, both Federal and local governments in the U.S. should be making it illegal for any person, entity, or non-person entity to use “biosurveillance,” brain surveillance, and/or any technologies or methods which covertly spy on or affect the human body (by causing itching, muscle twitches, muscle movements, etc.) or brain (the specific wording in the laws would need to be more precise than the previous words, but the reader should get the point).  

Or, who would oppose laws which require publication of current and previous technologies which were used for such purposes and the locations and identities of those who used the technologies on others if one has knowledge that they were used? If they were never in use, then it should not be a big deal to enact such laws. If “nobody would ever do that!” then laws which specify that such advanced remote technologies were already illegal types of torture should not be controversial. 

And it is obviously necessary for Congress to make it illegal for any person or government entity to use technologies or other “tools” which “see into” homes, churches, or other enclosures. Those technologies are clearly searches which use deceptive technologies; they are anti-reason and unreasonable searches. 

Congress made torture illegal outside the United States but not within the United States? 

Now, any form of surveillance could obviously be used as torture, thus a discussion on U.S. Federal torture laws is relevant; the discussion in this article is incomplete and appears somewhat disorganized due to the incompleteness. There might be some objections to this discussion which are not going to be refuted here; common sense, and a close reading of U.S. Federal law, should refute those possible objections. 

First, one might find it interesting that U.S. Federal government officials did not make torture (including psychological or mental torture and law enforcement drugging people with “mind-altering substances”) illegal in the United States when they had a chance to do so.  

The U.S. Federal government only made physical torture, drugging others, and psychological torture illegal outside of the United States. The law was enacted in 1994, only a few months before then-Senator Biden supported the FBI’s and local police’s “community organized policing” methods or strategies which are said to include psychological torture, including a method known as “Zersetzung.” (Not all of the previously cited source is endorsed due to the use of bad language and other concerns; most references describing the torture method of Zersetzung are not in the English language. As a result, the previously cited source is used). 

Why didn’t Congress make coordinated stalking, Zersetzung, and similar methods illegal many years ago? 

It is also interesting that the 1994 torture law apparently did include “Zersetzung” in the definition of torture, but it only made it illegal “outside the United States.” The law appears to imply that the torture method of Zersetzung is legal within the United States.  

The 1994 U.S. Federal torture law defined torture to include “prolonged mental harm caused by…procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality” whereas “Zersetzung” means “decomposition” or “disruption” and is one such calculated, or pre-planned, supervised, and coordinated “procedure” which causes “prolonged mental harm” by “disrupting profoundly the senses or personality.”  

Such torture apparently is an attempt to inflict psychological suffering similar to what those with a “personality disorder” experience; what appears to be a personality disorder is to be expected if a person continuously experiences falsified schemes, hoaxes, ruses, ploys, everywhere they go. Zersetzung or coordinated stalking necessarily causes distrust in others, and that is one intent of such torture methods. 

Those who have written about Zersetzung describe it precisely as “prolonged mental harm” caused by coordinated stalking methods which profoundly disrupt the senses or personality. The 1994 law apparently made such torture illegal only outside the United States.  

This is a big deal and is worth emphasizing. The method Zersetzung was apparently known by international entities at that time, and Zersetzung apparently includes deliberately sensitizing the targeted person to common stimuli such as commonly experienced noises/sounds, movements, numbers, words with connotations which are suppose to be experienced by the target as false accusations, etc., and extensive stalking with plain-clothed, not-in-uniform or “informal” people in the community. More Zersetzung activities include causing financial loss by continuously destroying the targeted person’s car or other property. 

Such stalking with falsified schemes and sensitization ultimately causes severe mental pain and suffering and “profoundly disrupts” the targeted person’s personality. More recently, brain experts described “Zersetzung” as “torture” which “involved decomposition of personalities and was directed at political opponents of the state.” It is known that the FBI used similar methods in the past. Such torture might be used at the present time with the false label of being an “investigation” or, using FBI words, “intensive investigation.” 

Again, this is a big deal. The 1994 torture law appears to be yet another U.S. Federal law written to legalize government action (“Zersetzung,” drugging targeted persons, and other forms of psychological torture) in the U.S. while making the law appear as though the government was making it illegal. The wording of the 1994 torture law appears to even specifically be referring to Zersetzung (procedures coordinated by law enforcement or other secret government entities which profoundly disrupt the personality) only to make it illegal “outside of the United States” and not within the United States. 

There is more. A thorough search might discover that the U.S. Department of Justice published an opinion on the 1994 torture law. The opinion apparently suggests that the reason why the 1994 torture law only includes torture “outside the United States” is because (as the opinion apparently claims) there are enough laws against torture “occurring within the United States.” The opinion says the following: 

Conduct constituting ‘torture’ occurring within the United States was and remains prohibited by various other federal and state criminal statutes that we do not discuss here (page 300)

Of course, the Department of Justice’s opinion conveniently does not list those torture laws that it claims there are enough of; the opinion lists hundreds of other references to Supreme Court Cases and U.S. Federal laws, yet it apparently does not list a single reference to U.S. Federal law which makes psychological torture, Zersetzung, and other forms of torture illegal within the United States.

This might be because there really aren’t any laws which make psychological torture like Zersetzung illegal in the United States. When one researches U.S. Federal law, one discovers that the Department of Justice’s claim does not appear to be accurate; such laws do not specifically oppose “Zersetzung” or anything similar which would “constitute” specifically psychological torture methods whether or not they are used for coercion, intimidation, and to potentially get the target to harm themselves. Such laws also apparently do not oppose remote and covert law enforcement technologies which affect the human body and/or brain.  

(The “war crime” torture law is unclear; it apparently only implies that such torture is illegal in the United States “in relation to armed conflicts,” or during war. The “Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991” is apparently for “any foreign nation,” not America. The more one researches, the more it appears as though there are not many, if any, U.S. Federal torture laws which protect the American citizen from torture committed by law enforcement and secret police, whereas there are others which protect the non-American citizen. Why wouldn’t the U.S. government protect American citizens? Is this an indication that the U.S. government, or at least entities like the FBI and local secret police, is indeed using secret torture methods like Zersetzung?) 

Thus, there is an obvious need for Congress and the President to enact laws making it illegal for anyone, including secret police, the FBI, and other government or non-government entities, to use the torture method of coordinated and organized community stalking known as “Zersetzung” or anything similar.  

Why would government officials oppose making such things as law enforcement psychological torturous stalking methods illegal? Is it because this method might be in use now? And why not make it illegal for law enforcement or any other person within the United States to drug others with “mind altering substances?”  

These laws should apply to any previous years that a person was targeted; if the FBI and local secret police do not use “Zersetzung” or similar torture methods, then retroactive specification should not be a big deal.  

(There is a philosophical difference between retroactive laws and a retroactive specification describing in a new law that a specific action, method, or technology already was and remains illegal; for example, if a new remote and secret technology is developed and used by law enforcement, the FBI, etc., which secretly “physically controls” through the use of remote controls and tortures the human brain and/or body by causing muscle movements, thoughts, emotions, etc., then such technology likely reasonably already meets a definition of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment. If such technologies cause death, obviously those who used the technologies should reasonably be determined to be murderers and torturers.  

Laws which specify are not necessarily retroactive laws. This should reasonably apply to government use of Zersetzung, which government medical, psychological, and law enforcement individuals likely know is a type of torture which “disrupts profoundly…the personality.”) 

This is a bit off-subject but worth mentioning: the U.S. Federal government and several other governments supported the Draconian “lockdowns.” It is probably obvious that the torture method known as “Zersetzung,” which is intended to cause a “profound disruption in the personality,” could also be used by law enforcement or secret government entities in attempt to cause a person to appear to a psychiatrist or psychologist to have a “personality disorder.” What do such psychiatrists usually do? They often prescribe prescription chemicals that are basically “chemical restraints,” or “chemical lockdowns.” Thus, law enforcement and/or other government entities might support the use of Zersetzung to get targeted people on prescription chemical restraints. 

Similarly, there is a need for Congress to enact laws which monetarily reward current and former government employees or cooperators who provide information on the use of torture known as Zersetzung or similar stalking or false “investigative” methods, including information on the coordination and supervision of community organized stalking by psychologists, psychiatrists, or others with Ph.D.’s in psychology, sociology, etc.  

(The previous discussion is based both on what experts have written and also specific instances which were published in the news but never specifically described as Zersetzung, most likely because the torture method of Zersetzung is not well known in America. There was one specific instance which was publicized due to the person being somewhat of a well known person; the facts are almost identical to what experts have written about Zersetzung. The facts also include several indications that a secret, not-in-uniform law enforcement entity in more than one city were intending to use Zersetzung or similar coordinated community stalking methods. The person was discovered to be deceased. The cause of death and events leading up to the death suggest that Zersetzung was used by government entities. Neither this article nor future articles will provide the identity of the described occurrence. Multiple other published occurrences have similar characteristics. The point of this parenthesis is that there are indications that the torture method known as Zersetzung is ongoing in America).

Who would oppose Congress making secret investigations illegal within America? 

Many probably have not thought about this, but it is also obvious that secret police entities and secret or “undercover” investigations should also be illegal in America. One may not realize that many secret investigations may not be investigations but may be instead intended to harm the target

(It should be mentioned here that secret police entities might be labeled as something else by the FBI, local police, the Department of Homeland Security, or other entities, but it is possible that they are similar to what might be described as “career law enforcement officers” who do not wear uniforms identifying themselves as police (or FBI, Department of Homeland Security etc.), thus making it appear as though they are common citizens. The main responsibilities of such people may be the previously described “Zersetzung” and participating in FBI hoaxes, ruses, ploys, or other strategic deception).

A complete discussion on the need to make secret investigations illegal cannot be provided here. However, those who support such investigations might be secret government employees themselves who simply do not want to get in trouble for their crimes or “otherwise illegal activity.”  

Basically, there might be many “potential criminals” within government entities like the FBI or other surveillance and secret police entities. Secret investigations are not necessary to get non-government criminals, but secret investigations allow criminals within the government to secretly commit crimes. Thus, they should be made illegal. 

(In a 1997 House of Representative Hearing entitled “The Activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigations Part III,” the FBI said the FBI “often” used ruses, ploys, and strategic deception (page 132); one should keep that fact in mind while observing news, knowing that an FBI propaganda hoax might be intended to make it appear as though the FBI’s actions are less harmful than they really are. Or, an FBI hoax might be intended to make it appear as though the FBI’s operation against Catholics is only in one location of America. Or, an FBI hoax might be similarly intended to make the FBI and law enforcement cooperating with them to appear less dangerous to Americans.  

For example, the FBI or similar surveillance entities might make it appear as though they are secretly operating or infiltrating a few Catholic Churches, whereas the FBI might be targeting all Faithful Catholics in all Churches with the potential intent of causing “institutional change” by forcefully propagating homosexuality, false marriage known as gay marriage, and other anti-science evils.  

Basically, if law enforcement entities tell you that they might lie to you, you might keep that in mind when they make public statements. And the FBI apparently says the FBI might lie to you (the making of false representations…), so that should be kept in mind while observing what may or may not be false whistleblowers, ruses, ploys, and/or strategic deceptions. Those likely millions of secret police employees should also keep this in mind: if your boss tells you to participate in a lie like a hoax or an “investigation” which requires a falsified scheme, don’t you think the same boss might also lie to you? When a person or government entity requires you to lie to others, why would you trust what they say to you?) 

Who would oppose Congress making it illegal for the FBI and police to commit ‘otherwise illegal activity?’

It is also necessary for Congress to publicly describe the FBI’s guidelines as illegal and significantly limit the power of the FBI and other surveillance and secret policing entities, and it is likely necessary for Congress to require current and former FBI and other secret police employees or cooperators and their locations to be publicly identified; the FBI’s guidelines apparently imply that FBI employees and secret police entities cooperating with the FBI may commit serious crimes, apparently including violence and/or causing injury. Such FBI guidelines apparently imply that the FBI employees and cooperators may be criminals and therefore likely suspects in crimes. 

1971 U.S. Federal law allows government officials to modify the weather in the United States? 

It might sound strange, but now it is necessary to discuss a U.S. Federal government law on the weather. For the sake of discussion only part of a weather law is initially going to be provided, followed by a few sentences of discussion. The rest of the law will then be provided which leads into more discussion similar to the previous.  

Believe it or not, the following part of U.S. Federal law was enacted in 1971: 

No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States

Again, that is only part of the law. The same law then defines “weather modification”: 

The term ‘weather modification’ means any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere.

There is an obvious problem with the law; the complete law is as follows: 

No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States unless he submits to the Secretary [of Commerce] such reports with respect thereto, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may by rule prescribe. The Secretary may require that such reports be submitted to him before, during, and after any such activity or attempt. (Emphasis added)

Several pages could be written about that law, but it is not the main subject of this article. One point is: how many people in America (or the world, for that matter) would trust any scientist to “engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States”? Because “weather” often affects thousands, if not millions, of people in unpredictable and different ways, deliberately modifying the weather could result in unpredictable consequences, up to and including death. Nobody should be permitted to modify the weather, even if they first “submit to the Secretary of Commerce such reports…” etc.  

Another absurdity of the weather law above is that it actually legalizes weather modification by making it first appear as though weather modification is illegal; the person who is not an expert but has studied U.S. Federal law will know that this is apparently an intentional method to make the words in the law appear as though the U.S. government is making something illegal, whereas they are actually deceptively legalizing actions that most Americans would oppose (for example, hoaxes and lying committed by law enforcement, FBI, secret police, local police, etc.).  

Another point, which should be obvious, is that it is possible for the U.S. government to completely make advanced technologies illegal without any exceptions for anyone. The above law should really be “No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States.” 

And that brings the discussion back to one of the main points of this article: to suggest that the U.S. government should be making several laws to protect the common American from government officials who may secretly cause Americans harm.  

There are advanced innovative technologies which could (or may currently) be secretly and remotely used by entities like the FBI or other surveillance or law enforcement entities to surveil and/or affect the human brain or the human body. Using similar words to the law above on weather modification but without any exceptions, how many people in America would disagree with the following law? 

No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any human brain modification or human brain surveillance activity in the United States

Obviously, it would be necessary to specify the legal use of brain surgery or other medical treatments or diagnoses, but only with full consent, and only with accurately defined words. 

Or, what about this: 

No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in the torture activity known as Zersetzung or any other secret policing activities in the United States. Law enforcement, the intelligence community, and all government and non-government persons and entities are not exempt from this statute.

More precise wording is necessary, but readers should get the idea. Who would disagree with such a law, unless a person or group is participating or previously participated in such torture known as Zersetzung? And how about this: 

Any person, government entity, or non-government entity with knowledge of coordinated secret policing and/or secret torture activities, methods, or technologies, including the coordinated stalking activity known as Zersetzung and any technology which remotely and secretly affects the human brain or body, is required to provide such information to Congress and any other relevant government or non-government entity. Any person with knowledge of the names and locations of other persons, sometimes with Ph.D.’s or other degrees in psychology or sociology, who are known to have coordinated secret torture methods such as Zersetzung in their community or other communities, are required to provide the information to Congress and other entities, and will be rewarded with monetary compensation not less than the amount which would be paid out for the remaining amount of lifetime employment. 

Again, more precise language is necessary. But if coordinated stalking methods are not currently used, then there would not be any problem with such a law. Finally, how about these: 

It is the finding of Congress that this is the United States of America. ‘I am an American. That’s the way most of us put it, just matter of factly.’ Those words have meaning. Millions of Americans sacrificed everything to prevent the Draconian enemies from overtaking this great country from outside this great country. It is now evident that the Draconian enemies have covertly and profusely made their way into the government itself, thus threatening to destroy the meaning of those words, ‘I am an American.’

And it is the finding of Congress that the Nazi Gestapo, the East German Stasi, and all other secret police entities only serve Draconian governments to destroy freedoms, often destroying lives and murdering in the process, and are thus contrary to the meaning of the words, ‘I am an American.’ ‘Otherwise illegal activity,’ ‘secretly FBI-owned or secretly government-owned or operated business,’ and ‘secretly causing injury, violence, or financial loss’ are contrary to the meaning of ‘I am an American.’

And it is the finding of Congress that ‘Men can not live with one another if there is not mutual confidence that they are being truthful to one another.’ This includes national security entities, law enforcement, federal and local police, the intelligence community, and any other government or non-government entity which provides services as government employees and are answerable to the common American citizen.

And it is the finding of Congress that the word ‘surveillance,’ which includes biosurveillance, neurological surveillance, electronic surveillance, physical surveillance, and any other distortion of the word ‘surveillance’ that Draconian government officials can invent, is contrary to the meaning of ‘I am an American.’

As a result of such findings, Congress hereby and henceforth prohibits all hoaxes, ruses, ploys, secret ‘national security exercises,’ and propagating and/or use of false information by all government and non-government officials.

And hereby and henceforth all government and non-government officials are required to follow the laws, rules, and regulations that the common American must abide by. This applies retroactively because there is currently no U.S. Federal law which allows law enforcement, the FBI, or other entities to commit crimes; it is a retroactive specification, not a new retroactive law.

And hereby and henceforth all secret policing, secret security entities, or any similar secret government or non-government operation is prohibited within the United States. To protect the meaning of ‘I am an American,’ those with power over the common American citizen, including all government policing and security entities must be clearly identified at all times as government policing, law enforcement, security, investigative, or any other entity which is not to be determined by the Secretary, but instead will be determined by the common American citizen.

And hereby and henceforth, whether used together or separately, all torture and surveillance, including biosurveillance, neurological surveillance, or any other distorted use of the word “surveillance” that Draconian government officials invent, is prohibited. This should apply retroactively due to a document known as The Constitution of the United States of America which prohibits unreasonable searches.

And, partially due to the harm and/or death which may have resulted, local, state, and Federal and any other governments are required to publicize all information on their current and previous investigative or other methods, technologies, and sources, including all information on all hoaxes, ruses, ploys, and secret government national security exercises, including the names of the employees who participated in the those falsified activities. ‘I am an American’ means the common American citizen should know what their government officials have done and are currently doing.

Finally, it is the finding of Congress that there is a document entitled, The Constitution of the United States of America. It is the finding of Congress that the contents of this document are suppose to govern the United States, as opposed to the often anti-American opinions of the secret police, national security, or public health entities. And it is the finding of Congress that abortion and so-called ‘gay marriage’ are contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America; therefore, both are prohibited in the United States of America. Doing whatever evil one wants and saying it is “health care” or ‘national security’ is contrary to reason and contrary to the laws of this land.

And it is the finding of Congress that entities, including law enforcement, local and federal secret and uniformed police, intelligence community, and other government, use of hoaxes, ruses, ploys, and strategic deception, are anti-truth, anti-reason, therefore constitute unreasonable searches, and are therefore prohibited.

Secretly government-owned and/or operated businesses, including and especially those of the FBI, local police, or other Gestapo-like entity, also constitute unreasonable searches and are therefore prohibited.

[And so on.]

It is unknown how many people would find any of those to be controversial unless, of course, they are employed by a Gestapo-like government entity in America. Again, some laws are necessary but not always a guarantee of protection; murder is supposed to be illegal in America, yet the murder known as “abortion and murder of those who are said to be sick is said to be legal in America, as long as it is (falsely) described as “protecting public health” or for “health care.”

Even so, some of the concepts above should be made into law with more precise wording. “Retroactively” is used because entities like the FBI have apparently said that they commit “otherwise illegal activity” which may apparently include causing injury, violence, and financial loss; it does not appear as there is a Federal law which says, “law enforcement can do whatever they want.” Thus, “otherwise illegal activity” should have been and should remain to be illegal, even if the FBI or other secret law enforcement entities suggest they can do whatever they want. An authentically American justice system requires that such people are brought to justice; unfortunately, it is not clear what can be done when the Department of Justice and their secret and not secret law enforcement employees are those committing the crimes. 

The basic point is, why doesn’t Congress make laws which are written to protect the common American citizen from evil people within the government? 

And if hoaxes, ruses, ploys, and secret government national security exercises really aren’t a big deal, then why not require the publication of all information on those government and non-government activities? Americans deserve to know what powerful government entities and employees are doing.

The commonly mentioned objection is something like, “America’s enemies will harm government employees if they know the methods, sources, hoaxes, ruses, and ploys of the FBI, local police, and other entities.” 

That is an absurd reason, which cannot be completely refuted here. However, it should be mentioned that there are several professions which are required by governments to have their names and other information published. This is partially to protect the common citizen from harm from such professionals. 

And, the FBI, local “undercover” police, the intelligence community, and other individuals could easily be much more of a threat to the common American than professionals who are required to have certain information published. America’s enemies are most definitely going to attempt, either by force, by bribing, or other manipulation, to get into the FBI and other secret government entities which are provided with weapons and allow themselves to commit “otherwise illegal activity.” 

Also, some might observe the publicized actions of uniformed government police officers over the years and conclude that, if uniformed officers would supposedly do those things when they know they are being observed, what kind of evils have secret government officers gotten away with when they know they are not being observed and can commit “otherwise illegal activity” without punishment? This should be a legitimate concern for every American. 

In other words, most Americans probably would agree that Congress and the president should be making the FBI’s guidelines on secret operations illegal. Because those guidelines imply that FBI or local police cooperating with the FBI might have committed crimes, then it is likely that Congress and the President should require the true identities and locations of all current and former secret police (or whatever the government label for such entity is) employees to be publicized. All information on previous and ongoing federal and local hoaxes, ruses, ploys, and strategic deceptions should be publicized. This is America, and such false occurrences are contrary to what it means to be an American. 

Again, laws which are written to protect the American citizen from evil government employees are not guaranteed protection. It is known that government secret police entities like the Gestapo always are used to harm the common citizen. It is likely up to the likely millions of people in America employed by the local, Federal, or potentially even international and non-American secret police, secret security, FBI, or whatever their government entity might be labeled, to determine that such secret entities are contrary to the meaning of the phrase, “I am an American,” and to publicly work to oppose such entities.  

If a person is genuinely seeking what is good, trying to not do and avoid what is evil, and trying to cooperate with the Grace of God with the hope of getting to heaven as is taught in authentic Catholicism, one’s conscience should easily determine that such deceptive government (or non-government) entities like secret police, undercover police operations, the FBI, etc., are contrary to Truth. The Truth Himself, Jesus, said that deceivers are not of God but “of the devil.” And Jesus then specifies that “deceivers of every sort” and “every one who loves and practices falsehood” are likely to go to hell if they don’t honestly repent, which requires discontinuing such deception, dishonesty, and torture.  

And there is much more information on those subjects but it cannot be written in this article.