Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

The CDC Intervened in Voting Protocols

Published

8 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER 

What’s fascinating is the timing. The page was updated to mention the necessity of mail-in voting on March 12, 2020. That’s the same day at Donald Trump’s famous hostage-style video that announced universal travel restrictions for Americans traveling to and from the UK and the EU, for the first time in US history.

In the spring of 2020, a deliberately cultivated disease fear swept across the population. Everyone was urged to do everything possible to avoid the invisible enemy.

It is an implausible request.

The terrorist-era slogan “If you see something, say something” was bad enough. This was “You can’t see something, so just do whatever.”

If you cannot see it, you cannot know where it is, in which case people filled the epistemic void with fantasies of their own invention.

It’s on this sandwich! Wait, it’s on this whole bag of groceries! It’s in this room while that room seems safer! It’s probably on the pen I just used so I’d better wash my hands! I should wear this helmet and these gloves, plus wash my dishes five times before using them! And so on.

It was all madness and it immediately affected the subject of voting, which quickly became a subject of discussion. If we are social distancing and staying home, how can we have normal elections with crowds at polling places? Surely we need a completely different system.

It was in this thicket of sudden frenzy that the CDC got involved. But not eventually involved; it was involved at the very outset.

The page is now scrubbed from the CDC website as of January this year but it has long posted voting protocols as a means of controlling infectious disease spread.

What’s fascinating is the timing. The page was updated to mention the necessity of mail-in voting on March 12, 2020. That’s the same day at Donald Trump’s famous hostage-style video that announced universal travel restrictions for Americans traveling to and from the UK and the EU, for the first time in US history.

He was so nervous that he actually garbled a sentence. He said that he would stop all goods transport. He meant to say that he would not! The correction came a day later but only after the stock market crashed.

That very day, someone went to the page on the CDC site and added that good hygiene involves pushing mail-in voting. We only know this thanks to Archive.org and checking the day-by-day timeline.

States now armed with this exhortation had every reason or excuse to liberalize their laws concerning mail-in voting. Plus with the CARES act, they were suddenly flush with billions to make it happen, all in the name of disease control. People permitted practices that otherwise would never have gone through.

In addition, the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, as part of the Department of Homeland Security, also took charge of securing the elections, obviously with the new liberalized ethos as part of the goal, which is to say, the opposite of security. This is the same agency that divided the workforce between essential and nonessential workers and also led the censorship charge.

There is nothing new about the controversies concerning mail-in ballots. Only half the world’s nations permit them at all. Nations such as France ban them entirely. Those that do allow this are very strict, as the US once was. You have to write in with a good excuse and then receive your mail-in ballot and there must be an exact database match. Part of this is proof of identity. This is all in the heightened interest of security.

By contrast, when I was traveling the country in October 2020, each place I landed I would receive a notification from Facebook to get my mail-in ballots. These were states where I didn’t live. I did not attempt this but I swear I could have voted six times. And otherwise you know how much controversy this elicited.

Indeed, Trump’s raison d’etre to this day is revenge for an election he says was stolen due to mail-in ballots. Well, if so, it only happened because of decisions made by his own executive agencies, CDC and CISA in particular. He has never been asked about this, by the way.

What is the precise connection between voting lines and infectious disease spread? There was every incentive to demonstrate one, something definitive to prove that in-person voting creates a super-spreader to be avoided. Despite this, there is not one single high-quality study showing some relationship. In fact, despite extensive research, I cannot find a single study that even purports to show that in-person voting spreads disease. Not one.

However, one of the few existing studies of this question from Wisconsin shows zero relationship.

In these days of fiction over science, the CDC just assumed there was some relationship and so invoked all its powers and influences over state health agencies and further to maximize mail-in voting and minimize in-person voting. It was entirely due to mail-in votes that Trump went so quickly from winning to losing literally overnight.

Here we have the nation’s great disease-mitigating agency, operating under the banner of science, issuing an order that fundamentally compromised the integrity of the very essence of American democracy without one shred of scientific evidence to justify the decision.

It does indeed stink to high heaven.

Does this imply that the goal of the whole wild episode was to unseat Trump from power? This would not explain why many of these same protocols were followed all over the world. Was Trump’s loss, real or manufactured, a benefit for those who ran the pandemic response? Most certainly. And the unearthing of this little change from the CDC – which found itself in the middle of the most contentious political struggle of modern times – certainly underscores the point.

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Before Post

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

2025 Federal Election

Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Mark Carney described the Freedom Convoy as an act of ‘sedition’ and advocated for the government to use its power to crush the non-violent protest movement.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney refused to elaborate on comments he made in 2022 referring to the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy protest as an act of “sedition” and advocating for the government to put an end to the movement.

“Well, look, I haven’t been a politician,” Carney said when a reporter in Windsor, Ontario, where a Freedom Convoy-linked border blockade took place in 2022, asked, “What do you say to Canadians who lost trust in the Liberal government back then and do not have trust in you now?”

“I became a politician a little more than two months ago, two and a half months ago,” he said. “I came in because I thought this country needed big change. We needed big change in the economy.”

Carney’s lack of an answer seems to be in stark contrast to the strong opinion he voiced in a February 7, 2022, column published in the Globe & Mail at the time of the convoy titled, “It’s Time To End The Sedition In Ottawa.”

In that piece, Carney wrote that the Freedom Convoy was a movement of “sedition,” adding, “That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”

Carney went on to claim in the piece that if “left unchecked” by government authorities, the Freedom Convoy would “achieve” its “goal of undermining our democracy.”

Carney even targeted “[a]nyone sending money to the Convoy,” accusing them of “funding sedition.”

Internal emails from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) eventually showed that his definition of sedition were not in conformity with the definition under Canada’s Criminal Code, which explicitly lists the “use of force” as a necessary aspect of sedition.

“The key bit is ‘use of force,’” one RCMP officer noted in the emails. “I’m all about a resolution to this and a forceful one with us victorious but, from the facts on the ground, I don’t know we’re there except in a small number of cases.”

The reality is that the Freedom Convoy was a peaceful event of public protest against COVID mandates, and not one protestor was charged with sedition. However, the Liberal government, then under Justin Trudeau, did take an approach similar to the one advocated for by Carney, invoking the Emergencies Act to clear-out protesters. Since then, a federal judge has ruled that such action was “not justified.”

Despite this, the two most prominent leaders of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, still face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the non-violent assembly. LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on their trial.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An Ontario judge dismissed a liability claim from a family of a high schooler who died weeks after taking the COVID shot.

According to a published report on March 26 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Ontario Superior Court Justice Sandra Antoniani ruled that the Department of Health had no “duty of care” to a Canadian teenager who died after receiving a COVID vaccine.

“The plaintiff’s tragedy is real, but there is no private law duty of care made out,” Antoniani said.

“There is no private law duty of care to individual members of the public injured by government core policy decisions in the handling of health emergencies which impact the general population,” she continued.

In September 2021, 17-year-old Sean Hartman of Beeton, Ontario, passed away just three weeks after receiving a Pfizer-BioNtech COVID shot.

After his death, his family questioned if health officials had warned Canadians “that a possible side effect of receiving a Covid-19 vaccine was death.” The family took this petition to court but has been denied a hearing.

Antoniani alleged that “the defendants’ actions were aimed at mitigating the health impact of a global pandemic on the Canadian public. The defendants deemed that urgent action was necessary.”

“Imposition of a private duty of care would have a negative impact on the ability of the defendants to prioritize the interests of the entire public, with the distraction of fear over the possibility of harm to individual members of the public, and the risk of litigation and unlimited liability,” she ruled.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Dan Hartman, Sean’s father, filed a $35.6 million lawsuit against Pfizer after his son’s death.

However, only 103 claims of 1,859 have been approved to date, “where it has been determined by the Medical Review Board that there is a probable link between the injury and the vaccine, and that the injury is serious and permanent.”

Thus far, VISP has paid over $6 million to those injured by COVID injections, with some 2,000 claims remaining to be settled.

According to studies, post-vaccination heart conditions such as myocarditis are well documented in those, especially young males who have received the Pfizer jab.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X