Protect Election Integrity~Censor Anyone Who Questions the Election

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Last week, Google's YouTube announced that “supporting the integrity" of the election required it to censor anyone alleging that "widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election".

By historical presidential election, Google meant this one. Democrats are still free to allege that they would have won in 2000 or 2016, if it hadn’t been for the chads or the Russians.

A huge tech monopoly closely tied to the Democrats, which was sued by the Trump administration over its illegal abuses, censoring critics of the Democrat election fraud is protecting and supporting something alright, but that thing is very definitely not integrity.

Election integrity, like fact-checking, is one of those curious terms whose meaning was ‘Orwellianized’ in the last decade. Fact-checking used to mean media organizations checking their facts before they published a story. Now the media has mostly done away with internal fact-checking and uses fact-checking to describe its efforts to censor conservative media.

Election integrity traditionally meant verifying the integrity of the process, but is now being used to mean silencing anyone who questions the integrity of the election. In both cases a term that meant protecting the integrity of an internal process has been turned inside out to mean covering up for the corruption of the internal process by censoring its outside critics.

That’s the new integrity.

At last count, 72% of Republicans, and 1 in 3 Americans, don’t trust the election results. That means silencing a hundred million people to protect thousands of election workers.

Protecting the integrity of the election means clean voter rolls, voter IDs, and elections that take place under predetermined rules put into place by state legislatures. It does not mean telling critics that pointing out the lack of integrity in the election is a threat to election integrity.

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.

One basic difference between free and unfree societies is that free societies have internal checks and balances, while unfree societies only have external ones. A free society assures the integrity of its elections and its facts by keeping its facts and elections open to examination, while an unfree society protects its processes against outside criticism by threatening its critics.

American elections now happen under the grim shadow of networks of organizations that vow to “protect election integrity” by making sure that Americans aren’t “misled” by “disinformation”.

Typical of these is the Election Integrity Partnership, funded in part by billionaire Biden donor Craig Newmark, which predictably claimed that “election disinformation” was coming from Trump supporters. Its list of “repeat offenders with large audiences” consists entirely of Trump supporters. Calling people you disagree with “repeat offenders” is typical of the lefty discourse that criminalizes dissent by describing opposing views as “disinformation” and then an offense.

It's easy for conservatives to laugh off such corruption, much like Poynter's Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership being embedded in the fact-checking machine, whose head also doubles as NPR's public editor, but legally treating lefty views as embodying truth and facts and conservative views as representing disinformation has serious consequences.

Even beyond YouTube and social media censorship in the marketplace of ideas.

The entire election integrity industry whose work involves closely monitoring political speech by ordinary people is operating under the theory that the biggest threat to elections comes from people. The Democrat obsession with Russian bots in the last election was almost wholesome compared to their current obsession, not with bots, Russian or otherwise, but with Americans.

Election integrity now means a stasi-like focus on identifying and punishing public speech. The threat, as in most totalitarian societies, was never really from outside: it was from Americans.

In 2020, Dems mostly ceased pretending that the issue was bots or foreign agents, instead, the election integrity industry amplified by the media claimed to be very worried about people sharing “disinformation”. Big tech firms approached the election boasting about their massive effort to stem all the “disinformation” in order to protect the integrity of the election from people.

But if people can’t be trusted to discuss political issues, how can they be trusted to vote?

Our elections are only as free as our ideas are. Any system that doesn’t trust people to debate ideas isn’t about to trust them to actually make the decision about implementing those ideas.

The suppression of questions about the integrity of the election is the best reason to question it.

A free liberal society defines integrity as the integrity of the process while illiberal ideologues define it as the integrity of the outcome. The shift from the integrity of process to integrity of outcome has destroyed the integrity of most of the country’s institutions and the public’s trust.

The highest principle of integrity of process is sticking with the facts and following the rules, but integrity of outcome’s only principle is a cause so righteous that none of the rules matter.

Shifting from process to outcome led to a media that was not just biased, but that has zero regard for the facts or the truth, but insists that it’s right because it has the right principles. This preference for picking the outcome you want and then forcing the process to follow pervaded not just the media, but every political and many of the non-political institutions in American life.

That corrupt willingness to dispense with the rules is why so many question the election.

In the last four years, conservatives have witnessed a string of government officials coming forward to undermine a sitting administration, while others leaked from behind the scenes. Before the election, Democrat state officials in charge of the election vented their hatred for President Trump on social media while promising that a Biden victory was forthcoming.

Now some of those same officials are furious that Republicans are challenging the integrity of the elections they supervised. Guns don’t kill people and elections don’t defraud themselves.

Tech companies and the media have reduced the election to a sacred idea whose integrity may not be challenged, but Republicans aren’t challenging an idea: they’re challenging public officials. And tech companies stepping in to protect “election integrity” are not, at this late date, preventing voters from being “misled”, but protecting the officials they support from scrutiny.

Only unfree societies protect the integrity of public officials from the outrage of the public. And only a corrupt oligarchy selectively intervenes to protect its officials in the name of “integrity”.

Election integrity isn’t achieved by suppressing criticism of election officials. That is how you get corruption. And how conspiracy theories, right or wrong, are spawned on an unprecedented scale. Real integrity comes when public officials are held to a high standard by the public.

Free countries can have contested elections. Unfree ones, by definition, can’t.

Contested elections are healthy things. As long as you contest them the right way. Throwing around accusations of election fraud is as American as apple pie. Even most liberal historians agree that there were at least two “historical” presidential elections, as Google puts it, whose outcomes were corruptly determined. And a number of others were legitimately in dispute.

The unhealthy way to contest elections is accusing the winner of being a Russian spy, and launching investigations of him and his associates based on that smear. That’s how elections are contested in places like, well, Russia. Just make sure to substitute American for Russian.

The oligarchy has spent every minute since the election crying that contesting an election is illegitimate, a threat to what it calls “democracy”, and must be stopped to save our country.

Free countries aren’t that fragile. Unfree ones are very fragile.

Every time you hear another media screed about the threat posed by “disinformation”, you’re hearing an admission that their rule over this country is totalitarian and very fragile. And when you hear them lecture about the need to protect “election integrity” by suppressing critics, you’re hearing an admission that they rig elections whenever they can and are afraid you’ll find out.

Any faction that spends this much time protesting its integrity, doesn’t have any to protest.


NC Gov. Declares ‘Gender Expansive Parents’ Day’ for Parents ‘Not Exclusively Masculine or Feminine’



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper recently signed a proclamation marking “Gender Expansive Parents’ Day” to “honor” parents that don’t identify “exclusively as masculine and feminine.” The recognition has generated opposition from at least one Christian group in the state, which says that the decree undermines the God-designed roles of a father and mother.

“[A]ll parents, regardless of gestational relationship to a child, gender identity or gender expression, deserve to be celebrated for the love and nurturing they give to their children,” the Dec. 6 proclamation reads.

It states that at least two million U.S. children have a parent that is homosexual and that more than 400,000 children are in a foster home where one parent identifies as homosexual.

The declaration also claims that homosexuals are six times more likely to foster and four more times likely to adopt.

“[I]ncreasingly, many of these LGBTQ parents also exist outside a traditional gender binary,” the proclamation reads, explaining that terms such as “non-binary,” “gender expansive” and “agender” are used to refer to “a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine.”

“[P]arenting for those who do not identify as mothers or fathers can be isolating due to lack of public parenting communities, adequate parenting support systems, healthcare disparities, and legal discrimination in adoption and child custody,” it states.

“[R]ecognition of the work and sacrifice of non-binary, agender, and other gender expansive parents, as well as that of other non-traditional primary caregivers is key to our efforts to create a more inclusive state,” the document reads. “[T]he State of North Carolina recognizes any supportive relationship that a child has with their parent and honors gender expansive parents.”

Cooper recommended that all North Carolinians observe the date.

View the proclamation here. 

According to reports, the proclamation was the brainchild of Rep. Vernetta Alston, D-Durham, a lesbian who is raising two children with another woman. She told The News & Observer that the day can serve for those who don’t fit into Mother’s Day or Father’s Day celebrations.

“I identify as female, but for me, in our life, for our kids, my wife is their mom,” explaining that she is recognized by the children on a different day than Mother’s Day. “Why should I, or anyone situated similarly, celebrate in isolation?”

However, Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League, lamented the proclamation, calling it “a form of cultural heresy that works to undermine the nation’s core strength — the character of the family.”

“It [in essence] declares a mother or a father offers nothing uniquely beneficial to the care and development of a child,” he said. “Same-sex parenting purposely denies a child either a mother or a father. Moms and Dads are not interchangeable.”

“The home is our most important firewall against poverty, physical, mental, and emotional health issues, which, if compromised, only cost us billions of dollars in social welfare and law enforcement expenses,” Creech stated. “Only natural marriage and natural parenting can secure a healthy future for our children and civilization. By promoting this disinformation in a proclamation, we are setting this nation up for an incredible amount of harm.”


As previously reported, while some view transgenderism and gender confusion as a medical condition, Christians believe the matter is also, at its root, a spiritual issue and a result of mankind’s fallen state.

The Bible teaches that all are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent feelings and inclinations that are contrary to the law of God, and being utterly incapable of changing by themselves.

It is why Jesus came: to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).

Scripture outlines that Jesus came to be the propitiation for men’s sins (1 John 2:21 John 4:10), a doctrine in Christianity known as substitutionary atonement, and to save men from the wrath of God for their violations against His law (Romans 4:25Romans 5:9Romans 5:16), a doctrine known as justification.

The Bible also teaches about regeneration, as in addition to sparing guilty men from eternal punishment, Christ sent his Holy Spirit to make those who would repent and believe the gospel new creatures in the here and now, with new desires and an ability to do what is pleasing in the sight of God by His indwelling and empowerment (Ezekiel 11:192 Corinthians 5:17Titus 3:5).

Jesus said that men must be born again, and have their very nature transformed by the Spirit from being in Adam to being in Christ, or they cannot see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3-8).

Ezekiel 36:26-27 states of this inner rebirth, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments and do them.”

Vaccination Cards Will Track Everyone Who Gets a COVID-19 Vaccine

Vaccination Cards Will Track Everyone Who Gets a COVID-19 Vaccine


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Dec. 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released the first images of the government’s proposed COVID-19 vaccination record card and vaccination kits that include a needle, syringe, alcohol wipes and a mask. The vaccination card, which will be issued to everyone who gets a COVID-19 vaccine, will be used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to track who gets vaccinated with the first dose of the vaccine.1 2 3 4 5 6

Recipients of the vaccines will be asked to provide their cell phone numbers so pubic health officials can contact vaccinated persons by text and remind them to return to receive a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine three or four weeks later. The two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 (BNT162b2) need to be given 21 days apart. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine requires two doses to be given 28 days apart.1 2 4 5 6 7

Each dose of COVID-19 vaccine a person receives will be reported to the CDC.1 2

COVID-19 Vaccination Card Contains Personal Medical Information

“Everyone will be issued a written card that they can put in their wallet that will tell them what they had and when their next dose is due,” said Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) of Saint Paul, Minnesota. “Everyone’s going to get that.”1 2 6

Each card, written in English and Spanish, will record the first and last name of the person receiving the vaccine, along with their date of birth, medical information, the dates in which they were vaccinated and the name of who performed the vaccination and where. It will provide spaces to record the name of the vaccine given and the name of its manufacturer. It will also have spaces that could be used to record additional booster shots in the future.3 6

A “Draconian Process” to “Capture Everybody”

“We’ve set up everything [in] a draconian process, where when we sent out the ancillary kits which have needles and syringes, we’ve included paper cards to be filled out and given to the individuals, reminding them of their next vaccine due date,” said U.S. Army Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS) program tasked with facilitating development of COVID-19 vaccines.3

“We do know that pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens have established very elaborate tracking systems to set up appointments, notify people when their second shots are required,” Gen. Perna said. “And we’re doing our best to capture everybody to ensure that they get their second dose.3

Click here to view References:

1 Bonifield J, Vera A. Vaccination cards will be issued to everyone getting Covid-19 vaccine, health officials sayCNN Dec. 3, 2020.
2 Budryk Z. Details emerging on vaccine cards that will accompany inoculationsThe Hill Dec. 3, 2020.
3 Chappell B. Vaccine Cards And Second-Dose Reminders Are Part Of Warp Speed’s Immunization PlanNPR Dec. 3, 2020.
4 Kavanagh M. People getting COVID-19 vaccine will receive cards for second dose reminder3WTKR Dec. 3, 2020.
5 Scribner H. You will get a COVID-19 vaccine record card if you get the vaccine. Here’s what it looks likeDesert News Dec. 4, 2020.
6 Smith C. Everyone who gets a coronavirus vaccine will be issued this cardBGR Dec. 3, 2020.
7 Syal A. Covid vaccine cards are a reminder for the 2nd shot, not a passportNBC News Dec. 4, 2020.


Dr. Gounder Recommends Waiting on COVID Vaccine if You’ve Had a History of Severe Allergic Reaction

You would think that [the severe allergic reactions to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine] would have come up in all of the phase trials already with those who were getting the vaccine, because that’s such a noticeable reaction. Well, I think it’s important to understand that when we do these Phase 3 clinical studies, we are actually intentionally excluding a certain population, so people who’ve had severe side effects… pregnant women, children, they were not included in these Phase 3 clinical trials. And, in fact, the way the vaccine is approved for use in the U.K., they are recommending, even prior to these allergic reactions happening, they were recommending against giving them to people who’ve had severe allergic reactions.