COVID-19
The CDC Intervened in Voting Protocols
From the Brownstone Institute
BY
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.
COVID-19
Questions linger after Coutts verdict
Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick Courtesy Bridge City News/YouTube
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
The Coutts trial may be over, but the questions it raises about justice and overreach continue.
A jury in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony “Tony” Olienick rendered a NOT GUILTY verdict on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. Known as the Coutts Two, Carbert and Olienick’s trial lasted from June 6 to August 2, 2024. After two and a half days of deliberations, the jury also found the pair GUILTY of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found GUILTY of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.
On February 13, 2022, Olienick was arrested outside Smuggler’s Saloon. Early on February 14, 2022, Chris Carbert was awakened from his sleep in a trailer by police loudspeaker.
Two Co-Accused Had All Charges Dropped in February
Conspiracy, possession of weapons, and mischief charges were also laid against Chris Lysak and Jerry Morin. Carbert, Olienick, Lysak and Morin, were dubbed the Coutts Four.
Lysak was arrested in Coutts late on February 13, 2022. Morin was arrested heading west of Calgary on Hwy. 22. He would work for a rancher near Priddis, a three-hour drive from Coutts. Lysak and Morin had all the original charges in the indictment dropped on Feb 6th, 2024.
Lysak pleaded to improper storage of a firearm. That charge typically results in a minor fine, not two years behind bars. Morin pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms, not to trafficking firearms. Two years in custody — including solitary confinement and being witness to brutality between prisoners — had taken its toll.
Tony Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns, told this reporter, Morin was not guilty of the new charge to which he plead. But this was the plea deal the Crown would agree to. Morin and Lysak were released after 723 days behind bars.
Carbert and Olienick maintained their innocence. However, pre-trial deliberations in court dribbled out for over a year before the trial itself.
The Accused Were Unarmed
None of the original Coutts Four — Carbert, Olienick, Lysak or Morin — were armed when arrested. None had a criminal record. Three of the four are fathers with children. Before his arrest, Lethbridge resident Chris Carbert was a self-employed fisherman who also ran a landscaping and fencing business with nine employees.
Years before his arrest, Tony Olienick took part of the clean-up in High River, Alberta, after the 2013 floods. The self-employed gravel truck owner got contract work at a stone quarry.
Coutts Charges Cited to Invoke Emergencies Act
At the Public Order Emergency Commission inquiry in November 2022, several senior cabinet and government officials cited events in Coutts as one of the triggers for invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act on February 14, 2022. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified “we heard from the RCMP Commissioner about concerns that there were serious weapons in Coutts . . . that really raised the stakes in terms of my degree of concern about what could be happening.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, “the occupation at Coutts seemed to be emboldened.”
Coutts Mayor, Jimmy Willett described the protesters as “Domestic Terrorists.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino testified “the situation was combustible… individuals… involved in Coutts were prepared to go down with a fight that could lead to the loss of life, . . . would have triggered other events across the country.”
The Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, pointed to the “seriousness” and “scale” of the “illegal activity,” “the quantity of weapons and ammunition discovered by the RCMP… contemplated by people at Coutts.” This confirmed her view that these people were insurrectionists, bent on “overthrowing the government.”
Yet, no bodycam footage and no recording entered as evidence in the trial substantiated claims by RCMP that Carbert or Olienick plotted violence against police. In January 2024, a federal court ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act was “unconstitutional.” The August 2 not guilty verdict for conspiracy to commit murder adds to the perception of government overreaction to the protests.
A Surprise from the Crown
In its closing words to the jury, the Crown suddenly alleged there was a hand-off of weapons on February 11, 2022.
The Crown should provide full disclosure to the defence before the trial concludes so allegations can be tested in court. Never mind. This last-minute allegation may have swayed the jury to find the defendants guilty of the possession of firearms charge and Olienick of possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.
Sentencing and bail hearings were scheduled from August 26 to 30. The week of September 9, the judge at the Coutts Two trial will hand down sentences for both of the accused given their combination of i) not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder verdict by the jury and ii) guilty verdicts for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and mischief, and for Olienick a separate guilty verdict for possession of an explosive for a dangerous purpose.
By then, the pair will have been in custody for 935 days.
This commentary is first of a three part series. Read part two here, and three here.
Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong
COVID-19
The Media Wants a Return to 2020
From the Brownstone Institute
By
They’re never going to stop.
We’re a few months away from the end of 2024, four and a half years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s a truth that should clearly be universally acknowledged by now, that the pandemic policies enacted by global governments were a catastrophic failure.
Mask mandates were pointless, harmful, and completely ineffective. School closures were one of history’s biggest mistakes, causing learning loss among young people that will set them back an entire generation. Business shutdowns achieved little except for hurting small business owners at the expense of massive corporations and necessitating a rolling series of money printing leading to rampant inflation.
Then we witnessed the formerly unimaginable emergence of vaccine passports.
Regardless, those policies have generally, and thankfully, come to an end. Overwhelming evidence, data, and scientific studies have confirmed that the Anthony Fauci-CDC doctrine was based on nothing, and accomplished less. But among the fearless media columnist set, there’s a desperation to return to the glory days of pandemic restrictions. The latest example coming from an opinion article published over at The Hill, complete with the usual misinformation, poor reasoning, and willful ignorance of current realities.
Continuing the trend that Fauci started.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky on December 27, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Media Personalities Can’t Let Go of Bad Covid Policies
The column by Aron Solomon presents several absurd arguments, blaming a “recent surge” on “new variants” and saying we “need to take stock of where we are” with the virus.
“The recent surge in COVID-19 cases has disrupted summer travel plans, overwhelmed healthcare facilities in certain areas, and left many Americans dealing with the familiar symptoms of fever, cough and fatigue,” Solomon writes. “The summer months, typically associated with lower respiratory virus activity, have instead seen a significant uptick in COVID-19 infections.”
This is factually inaccurate.
The summer months have traditionally been associated with higher respiratory virus activity in certain parts of the country. The South and Southwest have consistently seen higher Covid spread in the summer months, corresponding with past flu patterns. Even the extremist public health agencies such as the one that dictated their edicts to the city of Los Angeles have acknowledged that summer surges have happened every year since 2020.
Sure enough, that’s exactly what the data shows, summer increases in Covid spread, decreasing over time as population immunity grows and testing decreases.
But Solomon’s run of misinformation wasn’t done there.
He then blames the “relaxation of public health measures” for the increased Covid spread this year.
“Second, the widespread relaxation of public health measures has created an environment conducive to transmission,” he writes. “Mask mandates, social distancing guidelines and restrictions on large gatherings have all but disappeared. This return to normalcy, while massively psychologically and economically beneficial, has provided the virus with ample opportunities to spread.”
The pointless mask mandates disappeared years ago in many parts of the country, which is just as well as they conclusively did not matter. Comparing regions with and without mandates has consistently shown that areas with mandates have the same Covid rates, if not worse. Even in California.
It just doesn’t matter, because masks don’t work.
Solomon then advocates for the return of pandemic restrictions and a “commitment to public health” to combat the summer 2024 surge.
“While much progress has been made in terms of vaccination and treatment, the current surge is a stark reminder that complacency is not an option. The road ahead will require a renewed commitment to public health, both from government leaders and from individuals.
We all need to prepare for not only the possibility of continued disruptions but for another new normal that might be a little closer to 2020 than how we’ve recently been living. That means preparing for future waves and the long-term implications of a world in which COVID-19 remains a persistent, if manageable, threat.”
Beyond the absurdity of demanding restrictions that have already failed, Solomon is ignoring that there was effectively no “surge” in summer 2020, in any meaningful metric. Getting sick, unfortunately, is a part of life. People will have colds, flus, Covid, and their resulting symptoms forever. No matter what we do.
But what matters is whether these waves lead to a substantial increase in associated deaths. They conclusively have not. Per the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, Covid-associated mortality is essentially near all-time pandemic lows.
Roughly 1.8 percent of all registered deaths across the country were even tangentially associated with Covid. Those massive peaks though? Those came with the strictest restrictions of the pandemic, the restrictions Solomon wants to return.
Even the massive increase in 2021-2022 came after vaccines and boosters were widely available.
But a combination of immunity across a wide swath of the population effectively ended the pandemic. It had nothing to do with any pandemic policies from governments here or abroad. The fact that this is even remotely up for debate is a testament to the power of media misinformation and a willingness from people like Solomon to ignore contradictory information.
There is no emergency, there is no need to reinstate restrictions of any kind to deal with Covid. Especially because those restrictions are useless anyway.
Republished from the author’s Substack
-
International1 day ago
ISIS supporter used Canada in terror plot to massacre New York City Jews, motivated by October 7th Hamas attack on Israel: FBI
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
UBCIC Chiefs Commit A Grave Error In Labelling Authors As Racist Deniers
-
Agriculture2 days ago
P&H Group building $241-million flour milling facility in Red Deer County.
-
Business2 days ago
Molson Coors beer company walks back DEI policy after being exposed on X
-
Crime1 day ago
Venezuelan Migrant Says She’d ‘Return’ To Country After Living In Housing Taken Over By Venezuelan Gang
-
Energy12 hours ago
Trump Has A Plan To Fix The Electricity Grid — Increase Supply
-
Business4 hours ago
Federal government should stay in its lane
-
International2 days ago
Telegram founder Pavel Durov criticizes French authorities in first statement after his arrest