Elections are one of the areas targeted by globalists, and I’d like to begin with some added context on why elections are targeted. And this is two fold: first, while democracy has its limitations, the idea that citizens elect representatives, and give them the right to govern their sovereign territory is an incredibly valuable one. It is hinged on the idea that representative governance (as opposed to authoritarian dictatorships) is far more commensurate to a society that intends to ensure the best interest of those with a patriotic obligation to said sovereign territory. In other words, at the centre of democracy and representative governance is the will of the people as opposed to the dictates of the government. And so, it is a system of service, and not disconnected, authoritarian leadership.

Furthermore, in this system of representative governance and service, elections are about giving citizens back that right to govern their sovereign territory, so that they may decide who to award it to next. And so, elections serve as a check and balance – more than anything else. They ensure that leaders have an impetus to serve and deliver on the mandate given by voters, or risk not being awarded the right to govern the sovereign territory.

Then finally, elections connote a responsibility to ensure an educated and critical thinking electorate, because the integrity of such a system of representative governance requires some assurance that the citizens voting have all the information they require to make the best decision. To exemplify this further, we can see it in the history of how the US became established as a representative democracy.

A representative democracy came about in the United States because the colonists were tired of taxation without representation and wanted a more fair system where the people had more say in the rule of the country. But, then there was also the recognition that for most people participation is limited to casting a ballot every few years, and governance in the interim is carried out by representatives and a state bureaucracy often located in far-away places. Evidently, it was recognised that one potential risk in modern democracy is that citizens will grow distrustful of a distant central state. And if the danger of a large republic was that citizens would lack information and feel disconnected from the federal government, then investments needed to be made to overcome this problem of scale. Soon after the 1787 American Constitution’s ratification, James Madison wrote of the importance of subsidising newspaper delivery to out of the way places so that citizens could be informed. This took place with the Postal Service Act of 1792. People in the Early Republic also wrote that democracy in an extensive republic could only function effectively if citizens were educated, and so many states established plans to subsidise common schools. All of this is to prove that an educated, well-informed and critical thinking electorate necessarily had to go hand in hand with a successful implementation of representative governance and democracy.

And so, as far as elections are concerned, this details what the globalists do not want. They do not want representative governance that is based on the will of the people and a sense of service in public officials. They do not want a people who have an ability to keep a government in check, though taking back the power to govern the sovereign territory via elections. And they certainly do not want an educated, well-informed and critical thinking electorate. This is what the targeting of elections is about: it is that they do not want elections at all! And to exemplify this, I’d like to reference the time when Klaus Schwab hinted at this. He stated that elections would seemingly no longer be necessary because “digital technology” can help them predict the outcome. And so, his concern was not an improvement to elections or electoral processes; rather it was rendering them futile and dismissible.

WHY ELECTRONIC VOTING IS BEING USED TO CORRUPT ELECTIONS

So, now that we have established why elections are broadly targeted by globalists, we also have to talk about the concept of electronic voting, and why it is a massive tool in discussions of election corruption. To start with some contextualisation, the concept of electronic voting emerged in the 1960s with early experiments in mechanical and punch-card systems. In 1964, the United States saw one of the first uses of punch-card voting machines, which allowed voters to mark cards that were later tabulated by computers. These systems, used in states like California and Georgia, aimed to speed up vote counting compared to manual paper ballots. However, punch-card systems gained notoriety during the 2000 US presidential election, when “hanging chads” (which are incompletely punched holes) in Florida led to disputes over vote counts, exposing vulnerabilities in early electronic methods.

Then, in the 1970s and 1980s, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines emerged. These systems, first deployed in the US in the late 1970s, allowed voters to select candidates on a touchscreen or button interface, with votes stored electronically. By the 1990s, companies like Diebold and Election Systems & Software (also known as ES&S) produced DRE machines widely adopted in countries like the US, Brazil, and India. Brazil implemented DRE systems nationwide in 1996, becoming one of the first countries to conduct fully electronic elections, claiming faster results and reduced fraud. India followed, deploying electronic voting machines in the 1980s, with full nationwide use by 2004, tailored for a large, diverse electorate. Then the 2000s marked a shift toward internet-based voting, spurred by the internet’s growth. Estonia pioneered online voting in 2005, allowing citizens to cast ballots remotely using what were said to be secure digital IDs. However, this system then began to raise concerns about cybersecurity and voter privacy – and necessarily so, especially when looking at countries like the US.

In the US, June 5, 1968 marked the birth of Democrat election rigging using electronic voting systems. And this is against the backdrop of California and Chicago having been implicated in political corruption for the longest time. More specifically, on June 5,th 1968 moments prior to the assassination of RFK, news of his victory and vote tallies revealed that California’s new “electronic” tabulators resulted in slower and delayed counting of the votes, that hand counting would be faster, and that there were problems with “programming” the machines. And interestingly, the more California “perfected” their electronic voting machines in subsequent years, the farther left California became until it became nearly impossible for a Republican to win in a state that was once ruby red conservative. Similar patterns have even developed in states like Colorado.

But, here is the practical consideration: ALL electronic voting equipment can easily be hacked because all such equipment must receive programming before each election from memory cards prepared on election management systems which are computers often connected to the internet running out-of-date versions of Windows. If a county election management system is infected with malware, the malware can spread from that system to the USB drives, which then would transfer it to all the voting machines, scanners, and ballot-marking devices in the county. Most US election systems are programmed by local county election officials or third-party vendors, who plug previously-used USB drives into computers connected to the internet before plugging those same USB drives into the optical scanners, tabulators, and voting machines that collect, count, and determine election results.

And it is not just the practical issues with the machines themselves that are of concern, because there are also considerations of plain corruption from companies producing the machines, and (of course) the lack of oversight. In more detail, we generally have a collective understanding that the basic tenets of good voting tactics include: ensuring one vote per voter, maintaining voter anonymity, and prevention of fraud. But, with electronic voting, these basic tenets cannot be maintained in an electronic voting system. First, technology adds more steps to the process of voting and thus increases the possibility of error with each additional step, all of which are largely unseen by the voter. Not only does the technology create more errors in the electronic workings, but the voters can also commit mistakes due to a lack of familiarity with the user interface, especially as different machines produce different interfaces, and even the audio guides to help the disabled are reported to prove less helpful.

Secondly, with the advent of electronic machine voting also comes the higher possibilities of fraudulent machines and practices. First of all, the technology is “black box software,” meaning that the public is not allowed access into the software that controls the voting machines. Although companies claim that they protect their software to protect against fraud (and to beat back competition), this also leaves the public with no idea of how the voting software works. It would be simple for the company to manipulate the software to produce fraudulent results. Also, the vendors who market the machines are in competition with each other, and there is no guarantee that they are producing the machines in the best interest of the voters and the accuracy of the ballots, as opposed to prioritising their profits.

Then thirdly, vote accuracy is also an issue, because voters have no way of confirming their vote, and there is also no way of conducting a recount with direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting. With DRE, there is no paper trail, no verification, and thus no scrutiny of the processes. Voter anonymity is also a problem, as voters have to provide much of their personal information to the systems for voter verification, and with that comes the problem of keeping voter information safe and keeping voters anonymous – where as with in person and paper-ballot based vote, just showing your ID serves as proof of who you claim to be. Now, by the way, Democrats have long been aware of these issues, despite a significant number of them doubling down on the use of electronic voting machines.

But the concerns do not even end with what we’ve just discussed. A veteran US Air Force and CIA Officer came out to expose that he has evidence that can prove that the source code operating the election machines in Smartmatic and Dominion voting machines that determines the US Presidency are owned by the Venezuelan Narco Regime and made in China.

He states that Dominion took an additional step to conceal its manipulation of US Elections by moving its research and development and servers which store U.S. Swing States voting information to its office in Belgrade Serbia. In the Belgrade Office, Venezuelan, Chinese and Serbian software engineers maintain system administration status over US Swing States elections and alter elections as directed by Cártel de los Soles, which is the Cuban DGI.

This election manipulation often involves large bribes to alter election results such as the case in the 2016 Philippines election where the President of Smartmatic Roger Piñate was indicted for bribery in relation to the 2016 Philippines election. Now, this criminal evidence was presented two years ago to a Senior FBI Agent in Washington DC. That Agent after seeing three hours of evidence told them to flee Washington DC, that the FBI under Christopher Wray would actively work to destroy their efforts and seek ways to prosecute them in order to stop their investigative efforts. Then, several months later his team briefed three US Attorneys who were Federal Prosecutors from Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice and they never heard back from them.

So, this tells us not only that elections have been stolen around the world, including in the United States of America; but also that governments are often culpable in this.

Evidently, electronic voting has built in issues. And if you have voting machines that are connected to the internet and you have advanced AI that can potentially affect those machines, that’s very dangerous. Ultimately, the machines are susceptible to hacking and corruption, and therefore ought not to be considered… THEREFORE, what is the alternative? Simply, paper ballots, in-person voting, with a state sanctioned ID.

When you consider the alternatives we just mentioned, I think it also makes it clear why these alternatives were often so opposed by Democrats – especially voter IDs. To take it even a step further, I would state that it is absolutely no coincidence that the same people who favour open-border policies are also the ones who also oppose voter ID requirements. Refusing voter ID and dismissing them as racist is not about making voting more accessible, RATHER it is about the ability to corrupt the election process, through making it possible for persons to assume the identities of legal citizens and vote in elections that they otherwise should not be voting in!

So, what they do is that they manipulate political discourse by sensationalising certain issues that establish a clear divide in the voter demographic, like securing the border, or immigration law in general – and this is to allow them to consolidate propaganda aimed at promulgating their desired narrative on these issues, and make it seems as though their position was always dominant (even though it only seemed so because of propaganda efforts and media presence).

Then, they also fabricate the numbers to correspond with this propaganda-constructed sense of a dominant narrative – to make it seem as though they have the electorate numbers. For example: simply, Kamala Harris’ campaign was the embodiment of irony. She was campaigning on the admission of the poor state of living in the US and the need to change it; and yet she had been in the White House for 3 and half years. Therefore, it follows that Kamala Harris was campaigning on the admission of her inadequacy for office, and so the only way that Democrats could elect Kamala Harris to office is if they corrupt and manipulate the election process. And they did this, first, when Kamala Haris did not receive votes in the primaries for her to be the presumptive nominee. Then they also capitalised on the importation of voters through their relaxed and downright irresponsible immigration policies. In fact, you’d recall that Senator Elizabeth Warren has come out to say that Kamala Harris ‘will work with Congress’ to provide a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for tens of millions of illegal migrants! Warren called this a pathway to citizenship, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union.

So, not only are Democrats fighting legislation that makes in person and paper-based voting more secure and reliable, but they also double down on electronic voting while some in their ranks concede to its challenges. So then the question becomes: why do voting machines continue to be used if they don’t make voting more secure, faster, or even cheaper? Despite hundreds of complaints about their use, the rationale behind their adoption remains unclear. And so, are they truly beneficial, or just a tool for manipulation? To which, I would dare to answer the rhetorical question and say that they are simply a tool for manipulation.

THE TIDE IS SHIFTING: FORMAL LEGAL RECOURSE AGAINST ELECTION CORRUPTION

But, thankfully, the tide is shifting and measures that amount to formal legal recourse are being employed. For instance, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit UPHOLDS Texas law requiring voter ID for mail-in ballots, to protect against voter fraud.

Similarly, let’s talk about the 2020 election. Now you’d recall that US president Trump released a tweet in 2020 that included a quote from a report stating that “DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE.” Many were quick to dismiss this as the words of a presidential candidate we just lost an election. Well, the truth characteristically vindicates those who stand for it, because Director of US National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has promulgated that there is now evidence that electronic voting machines have been tampered with to manipulate election outcomes in the United States. She provided a detailed update on her sweeping investigations into the politicisation of intelligence and election interference – specifically, the overthrow of the United States government during the November 3, 2020 election by the intelligence community and others.

In addition, she’s also uncovered fabricated reports and cyber vulnerabilities in voting systems that allowed hackers to access those voting machines. Declassified reports detail how electronic voting systems, used in multiple states during 2020, were susceptible to remote hacking and manipulation to alter results. The documents detail specific instances where vote tallies were altered—evidence Gabbard said was proof of election interference orchestrated by the Obama administration. Gabbard’s update ultimately accuses the intelligence community – especially in the Obama era – of working with others to send out rigged machines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The FBI’s findings on the 2020 election results, and in essence, a confidential human source told FBI counter-intelligence in the summer 2020 that China’s government was shipping fake driver’s licenses to the United States to manufacture “tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in votes” for Joe Biden – however, this report was left unaddressed by the FBI in the previous administration. Well, the FBI – under Kash Patel – has uncovered that in addition to that unaddressed report, the Biden family was actually taking millions of dollars from China. Biden’s CIA director, Bill Burns, also took millions of dollars from the Chinese government. The entire foreign policy establishment of the Biden White House had millions of dollars being injected into it from the Chinese government. They also used fake IDs and fake ballots to help ensure Biden would win the 2020 election and censored massive amounts of people on the internet and social media platforms to silence anything regarding Trump and the election including his loyal supporters.

BUT, this is just the tip of the iceberg; because it has now become less of a discussion about Trump’s alleged inability to move past an election loss, to being a discussion where (in the absence of Biden curated censorship on social media platforms), people are raising points about questionable behaviours that were observed during that period. This includes CAPTURED videos of officials pulling suitcases of ballots from underneath tables after the poll watchers went home because of “water pipes” allegedly breaking.

But, here is where it gets even more interesting: the aforementioned report – which was one of two recently sent by FBI Director Kash Patel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley – was sent to US intelligence agencies on August 24th, in the year 2020, as an uncorroborated advisory, then suddenly recalled with little explanation other than the bureau wanted to “re-interview” the source. Meanwhile, the recall notice specifically asked spy agencies to erase or delete the original intelligence memo.

THIS BIDEN FAMILY CORRUPTION VALIDATES THE 2023 IMPEACHMENT ENQUIRY

This corruption, implicating the Biden family, and linking them with the Chinese government validates the impeachment enquiry into then president Biden in 2023 – or at least the issues that were brought up in justification of the impeachment enquiry.

For some context, while on the campaign trail, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden insisted that he had no role whatsoever in his son’s business dealings. He would later state publicly that he had no involvement in or knowledge of his family’s business affairs. But, the foundation of Joe Biden’s repeated denials was then shaken by a growing pile of evidence. First, there were the explosive revelations of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop. Then, there were statements made by Hunter Biden’s former business associate Tony Bobulinski, and a series of bombshell disclosures made by Devon Archer, who is Hunter Biden’s business partner.

In particular, a readout of some of Mr Archer’s key revelations from a July 31 closed-door testimony before Congress in 2023, included that Hunter Biden put his father, who was the then vice president, on speakerphone during business meetings over 20 times and that the elder Biden was put on the call to sell “the brand.” This thus gave credence to Mr Archer’s testimony as proof that Joe Biden lied when he denied involvement in his son’s business dealings, while the Joe Biden’s supporters insisted the conversations amounted to “casual” small talk and that, at most, Hunter Biden had peddled the “illusion of access” to his father rather than the real deal. The White House also downplayed the significance of Mr Archer’s testimony, with then spokesperson Ian Sams saying it failed to provide the kind of bombshell evidence of wrongdoing that Republicans claimed.

But, on the heels of that denial, congressional investigators also then found evidence of a $200,000 “direct payment” to Joe Biden from family members, which many said was further evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s business affairs.

In the course of that period, the FBI was working around the clock protecting the Biden’s from being held accountable. Which brings us to the matter of the source of information about the Bidens and the FBI’s involvement. In this respect, US Department of Justice officials corroborated some of the information an FBI source provided to the bureau on allegations that then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, were bribed.

Then, members of Congress obtained and released a copy of the summary from FBI agents who spoke with the source, with the source conveying comments from Burisma executives concerning the Bidens. Among them was the claim that it cost $5 million to pay one Biden and $5 million to pay another Biden. Hunter  Biden worked for Burisma, a Ukrainian firm, for years while president Biden was vice president, including in 2016. That’s the year the discussion involving bribery took place.

In light of this, US attorney Scott Brady, who was appointed under President Donald Trump in 2017, told members of the impeachment committee that he was tasked by superiors to accept and vet Ukraine-related information sent to or gathered by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which includes the FBI. After working to corroborate some of the information from the interview summary, Scott Brady said his team passed the summary and the work they’d done to multiple offices, including the US attorney’s office for the District of Delaware. That office is headed by US Attorney David Weiss. Now, David Weiss has for years been investigating Hunter Biden for intentional tax avoidance and other crimes. Scott Brady’s team then briefed David Weiss’ team in October 2020 on the summary, known as an FD-1023.

However, and rather concerningly, neither David Weiss’ office nor any of the other US attorney’s offices who received the 1023 from Scott Brady’s team reached back out about the document, according to Scott Brady. He said there was “both a scepticism of the information that they were developing, that they had received, and weariness of that information” from David Weiss and David Weiss’ team.

Well, I raise these points on the Biden family’s corruption, a claimed scepticism of sources, and a captured and corrupt FBI – because what has been exposed by Kash Patel and the FBI under this second Trump administration is not at all far fetched from what we have already observed concerning the dealings of the mentioned parties – during Joe Biden’s impeachment hearing, it also validates what many already knew, despite Joe Biden not having been impeached.

WHAT FOLLOWS THE FBI’S EXPOSURE OF THE ELECTION CORRUPTION? 

But, the question we then ought to ask is what now, that the FBI has exposed the corruption in the 2020 election? After all, Trump is now the president of the US, and Biden is out of office. Well, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that his panel will launch a formal investigation into why the FBI in September 2020 ordered the withdrawal and destruction of an explosive “raw intelligence” report alleging Beijing involvement in the 2020 election fraud.

Grassley confirmed receipt of the now-declassified document and said it raises “serious national‑security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI.” The Senate Judiciary Committee is now requesting internal communications, a formal justification for the FBI’s “substantive recall” of the document, and a review of the FBI’s compliance with federal intelligence record-keeping laws. And so, its about to be a very interesting time to have been an FBI director or employee in the period of the election fraud and concealed documentation.

But now, interestingly, the aforementioned pre-election document itself does not assert that fraudulent ballots were (in fact) cast, and explicitly warns that the information should not be actioned without FBI coordination. HOWEVER, the scale and specificity of the allegations—now under Senate scrutiny—have dramatically reignited questions over how US intelligence agencies handled politically sensitive reports implicating the Chinese Communist Party in election interference. Furthermore, because of documented election fraud in states in the 2020 election, this should also warrant directing more questions towards US intelligence on its handling of reports of election interference, even that which was not immediately tied to the Chinese government – because clearly there were issues with those elections.

In fact, you would recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ the corruption that took place in the state of Georgia, where ballots were tabulated twice & counted twice AND it was NOT Done Accidentally!

THE FBI WAS RIDDLED WITH LIBERAL AGENDAS AND INCLINATIONS

We also have to address the intelligence related elephant in the room. More specifically, why is there this unmistakable dichotomy between the FBI in 2020 which concealed information about election manipulation AND the FBI in 2025 which made this a headline discussion?

Perhaps the answer lies with the fact that intelligence organisations have been used, or perhaps have allowed themselves to be used, as a tool of political destruction, against some of the same citizens they were created to protect; especially in reference to the continuing “Wiretapgate” debacle, where we are seeing the widespread abuse of intelligence by incumbent administrations to target their political opposition. Now, the danger of politicisation is widely accepted throughout the intelligence community as the greatest hazard, in theory, to the intelligence profession. If an intel service cannot be accepted as an unbiased arbiter, it loses the trust of its people, and risks becoming irrelevant and unheeded. History is littered with intel failures; one need only look to the invasion of Iraq to see how politicisation can lead to costly failure and a “trust gap” that can take years to bridge and resolve.

However, it has become clear to the public that intelligence leadership learned long ago to stop listening to its own philosophy on truth and a lack of politicisation. For instance, in the US, for the longest time (especially under Democrat leadership) politicisation and political correctness walked hand in hand throughout the intelligence community, as well as every other government agency. The political correctness mindset that now dominates every college campus is also positioned firmly throughout the government — particularly within the intelligence community, which saw its greatest personnel influx ever in the post-9/11 period.

This, of course, means that those individuals who joined in this period were raised under the Bush administration and reached professional maturity primarily under the Obama administration, in which they were immersed in a political correctness environment. In fact, you would recall watching Evelyn Farkas admit on live television that the Obama administration wanted the intelligence community to “get as much information as you can” before Donald Trump took office resembles some sort of social science experiment gone bad — and it frames the problems wrought by political correctness and the subsequent political brainwashing. And so, with Evelyn Farkas, we saw a mid-level official, permanently dwelling in a bubble of progressive liberalism, acknowledge being complicit in the breaking of US ethics rules and perhaps law — because, as she explained, that’s what they needed to do, seemingly because Donald Trump was a conservative candidate and a stark contrast to the politically correct dispensation they knew.

To appreciate how aggravatingly corrupt this is, here’s a comparison with how the Biden’s were treated by the FBI, through the lens of a hearing where Senator Ron Johnson clashed with then FBI Director Christopher Wray, about how the FBI handled the evidence against the Bidens.

DEMOCRATS HAVE A HISTORY OF ELECTION CORRUPTION

Now, in balancing the discussion, the FBI corruptions did not occur in isolation. It took place against the backdrop of the leadership of a Democratic establishment that – itself – is notorious for election corruption. For instance, in 2016, WikiLeaks published internal Democratic Party documents that revealed the extent to which the party organisation had interfered in the primaries against Bernie Sanders to tilt the scales in Hillary Clinton’s favour.

But, that was not an end in of in itself because former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne revealed how he worked with the FBI to arrange an $18 million bribe to Hillary Clinton from a foreign government to allow the deep state to control her in 2016 (although, of course, she thankfully lost that election).

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso