Connect with us

COVID-19

What Happened When the Georgia Governor Tried to Open the State?

Published

2 years ago

12 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER  

The journalists have fallen down on the job. To say the least.

Three years ago, all normal rights and liberties of the people were trampled on by governments everywhere. It was all for naught. The virus came and became endemic as it always would in any case. And as societies opened up gradually, we were left with unbearable carnage: economic, cultural, and public health. The damages continue to hammer the world in the form of health and economic losses, and now we face a growing financial and banking crisis.

One might assume that professional journalists would be all over this, digging into every nook and cranny to discover precisely how all this came to be. Alas, there is a weird game of pretend going on in the mainstream press: pretend lockdowns were fine, pretend the shots worked, and pretend that today’s shattered politics and economics have nothing to do with the outrageous actions that were perpetuated on people the world over.

As a result of this tremendously odd conspiracy of silence, the journalistic duty has fallen to people independent of the mainstream, writing for Brownstone, Substack, and a handful of other venues.

And yet, every once in a while, something does leak through in a large venue. That happened this weekend in the Wall Street Journal. The opinion page editor James Taranto took a trip to Georgia to talk with Governor Brian Kemp. The result is “Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Affable Culture Warrior.”

The thesis is that Kemp has been battling woke culture longer than anyone else while rarely getting the credit.

That’s interesting but not the real revelation of the piece. What it really does is dig deeply into the most interesting aspect of the last three years: how it came to be that Georgia was the first state to open following lockdowns and how the White House responded. On this subject, the piece absolutely breaks new ground, so much so that it is worth quoting the relevant passages here.

In April 2020, businesses in Georgia were shuttered by government decree as in most of the rest of the country. Mr. Kemp was hearing from desperate entrepreneurs: “ ‘Look man, we’re losing everything we’ve got. We can’t keep doing this.’ And I really felt like there was a lot of people fixin’ to revolt against the government.”

The Trump administration “had that damn graph or matrix or whatever that you had to fit into to be able to do certain things,” Mr. Kemp recalls. “Your cases had to be going down and whatever. Well, we felt like we met the matrix, and so I decided to move forward and open up.” He alerted Vice President Mike Pence, who headed the White House’s coronavirus task force, before publicly announcing his intentions on April 20.

That afternoon Mr. Trump called Mr. Kemp, “and he was furious.” Mr. Kemp recounts the conversation as follows:

“Look, the national media’s all over me about letting you do this,” Mr. Trump said. “And they’re saying you don’t meet whatever.”

Mr. Kemp replied: “Well, Mr. President, we sent your team everything, and they knew what we were doing. You’ve been saying the whole pandemic you trust the governors because we’re closest to the people. Just tell them you may not like what I’m doing, but you’re trusting me because I’m the governor of Georgia and leave it at that. I’ll take the heat.”

“Well, see what you can do,” the president said. “Hair salons aren’t essential and bowling alleys, tattoo parlors aren’t essential.”

“With all due respect, those are our people,” Mr. Kemp said. “They’re the people that elected us. They’re the people that are wondering who’s fighting for them. We’re fixin’ to lose them over this, because they’re about to lose everything. They are not going to sit in their basement and lose everything they got over a virus.”

Mr. Trump publicly attacked Mr. Kemp: “He went on the news at 5 o’clock and just absolutely trashed me. . . . Then the local media’s all over me—it was brutal.” The president was still holding daily press briefings on Covid. “After running over me with the bus on Monday, he backed over me on Tuesday,” Mr. Kemp says. “I could either back down and look weak and lose all respect with the legislators and get hammered in the media, or I could just say, ‘You know what? Screw it, we’re holding the line. We’re going to do what’s right.’ ” He chose the latter course. “Then on Wednesday, him and [Anthony] Fauci did it again, but at that point it didn’t really matter. The damage had already been done there, for me anyway.”

The damage healed quickly once businesses began reopening on Friday, April 24. Mr. Kemp quotes a state lawmaker who said in a phone call: “I went and got my hair cut, and the lady that cuts my hair wanted me to tell you—and she started crying when she told me this story—she said, ‘You tell the governor I appreciate him reopening, to allow me to make a choice, because . . . if I’d have stayed closed, I had a 95% chance of losing everything I’ve ever worked for. But if I open, I only had a 5% chance of getting Covid. And so I decided to open, and the governor gave me that choice.’ ”

At that point, Florida was still shut down. Mr. DeSantis issued his first reopening order on April 29, nine days after Mr. Kemp’s. On April 28, the Florida governor had visited the White House, where, as CNN reported, “he made sure to compliment the President and his handling of the crisis, praise Trump returned in spades.”

Three years later, here’s the thanks Mr. DeSantis gets: This Wednesday Mr. Trump issued a statement excoriating “Ron DeSanctimonious” as “a big Lockdown Governor on the China Virus.” As Mr. Trump now tells the tale, “other Republican Governors did MUCH BETTER than Ron and, because I allowed them this ‘freedom,’ never closed their States. Remember, I left that decision up to the Governors!”

What’s utterly remarkable here is that readers gain an inside look into the difficult spot into which Trump’s White House had placed Republican governors. The whole machinery of DC had been marshaled with Trump’s approval. The order read: “indoor and outdoor venues where people can congregate should be closed.” He issued this order on March 16 and expected full compliance, and then lobbied for trillions in welfare to the states to make sure they stayed locked down.

Only South Dakota with Kristy Noem refused. And for that she was dragged through the mud of media lies for two years because she allowed motorcyclists, for example, to organize and ride in her state. The fake studies coming out about the Sturgis bike rallies set a new low standard for real-time science.

Georgia is important because it was the first state to open. Trump tweeted his opposition to this move both in general and then, two weeks later, in opposition to Kemp’s opening.

Every bit of documentation absolutely contradicts Trump’s claim that he “left that decision up to the Governors” as a matter of his own intention. It was his intention to achieve what he later bragged he had done, which is “turned it off.”

I won’t belabor this anymore because we’ve covered this in more detail here and here.

And yet for weeks now, Trump has been telling visitors to Mar-a-Lago, and his coterie has backed him up, that he never locked down and only people like Kemp and DeSantis did this over his objections. Daily I get calls from people who are stunned that this outright attempt to falsify history is happening. But these days, it is just part of public life, I suppose.

This is why we must be grateful for people like Taranto for digging more deeply into the actual history of what happened in those fateful months from 2020 when life itself was completely upended by dreadful decision-making from the White House. If we had more journalists interested in what actually happened, rather than just pretending that either what happened was perfectly normal or that it didn’t happen at all, we would be far closer to getting to the truth, and making sure that such a calamity never repeats itself.

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker
    Jeffrey A. Tucker

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

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Daily Caller / 22 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 22 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 22 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X