COVID-19
What Happened When the Georgia Governor Tried to Open the State?

From the Brownstone Institute
BY
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.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy leader slams Canadian gov’t agency for praising its treatment of protesters

From LifeSiteNews
Tamara Lich begs to differ with the Department of Public Safety’s claim that it acted with high ‘moral’ standards during the Freedom Convoy protests.
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich is calling out Canada’s Department of Public Safety for “lies” after it boasted via an internal audit that it acted with a high “moral” standard in dealing with the 2022 protest against COVID mandates.
Lich made the comments on X earlier this week regarding a recent Department of Public Safety internal audit that heaped praise on itself for having “ethics” as well as a “moral compass” in dealing with the 2022 protesters.
The reality is that the self-boasting report comes after it was made known the Department of Public Safety had a role in spreading false claims that the Freedom Convoy was violent and was somehow funded by Russia.
As reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, the audit did not mention the false claims it made against the Freedom Convoy, which were used to allow then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to impose the Emergencies Act (EA) to clear out the protesters.
Indeed, in 2023, as reported by LifeSiteNews, disclosed records showed that Canada’s Department of Public Safety fabricated a security bulletin that claimed the Freedom Convoy protesters had plundered federal office buildings in an apparent attempt to discredit the movement.
The fake bulletin was sent out on January 28, 2022, at 3:54 p.m. and read: “We have received confirmation that protesters have started to enter office buildings in the Ottawa downtown core and are allegedly causing damage.”
The department’s recent boasting about itself, however, claimed that “(v)alues and ethics serve as a moral compass, guiding and establishing benchmarks for behaviour, decisions, actions and culture within organizations, including the public sector.”
“Federal public servants have a duty to preserve public trust and uphold a professional, non-partisan public service,” the internal audit noted.
Lich: Trudeau officials spread ‘lies, misinformation, disinformation, and division nationwide’
Regarding the recent audit, Lich noted that the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) hearing, which was tasked with investigating Trudeau’s use of the EA to crush the Freedom Convoy in mid-February 2022, “showed no violence or threats to national security during the 2022 Freedom Convoy.”
“It revealed a cycle between media and law enforcement, each repeating unverified talking points from the other. Despite widespread support along highways, overpasses, and communities, the CBC and other taxpayer-funded media missed an opportunity to unite Canadians,” she wrote.
Lich believes that Trudeau’s governmental departments “instead” spread “lies, misinformation, disinformation, and division nationwide.”
“Consequently, some of us face regular death threats, hate mail, threats of violence, and public harassment,” she wrote.
“Thankfully, we receive much more love and support, but the damage is done, which is exactly what they were aiming for.”
The sentencing trial for Lich and fellow Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber took place in July at a hearing. Earlier this year, they were found guilty of mischief in their roles in the 2022 convoy.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich revealed that the Canadian federal government is looking to put her in jail for no less than seven years and Barber for eight years.
A sentencing hearing has been scheduled in their case for October 7 in Ottawa.
The Freedom Convoy protest took place in early 2022 in Ottawa and featured thousands of Canadians calling for an end to COVID mandates.
In response, Trudeau’s federal government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, to shut down the popular movement.
Trudeau had disparaged unvaccinated Canadians, saying those opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”
Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out.
COVID-19
Why FDA Was Right To Say No To COVID-19 Vaccines For Healthy Kids

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The FDA’s decision not to authorize COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children has drawn criticism. Some argue: If parents want the shot, why not let them get it for their kids? That argument misunderstands what FDA authorization means — and why it exists.
The FDA often approves drugs that carry risks or have imperfect evidence of effectiveness. This is a tradeoff we sometimes accept for people who are ill: when someone is already sick, the alternative is untreated disease. Vaccines are different. They are given to millions of healthy children. This requires a higher standard, not just evidence for safety and immune response, but clear, durable clinical effectiveness. Approval for optional use isn’t neutral; once the FDA authorizes a vaccine, it carries the full weight of institutional endorsement.
Measles provides an example for how the FDA approaches vaccine approvals. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, the U.S. saw 3 to 4 million infections, ~48,000 hospitalizations, ~1,000 cases of encephalitis, and 400-500 deaths each year. Infants bore the brunt of the most severe outcomes.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
That created a natural instinct: why not vaccinate the youngest and most vulnerable? The initial measles rollout was to 9-month-olds, but within two years that timing was changed to children who were at least 1 year of age. This was not because younger babies were not at risk or that the vaccine was riskier for them, but because it just didn’t work well enough to justify a universal campaign.
The knowledge of the particular risk younger infants face has led to continued research on the effectiveness of measles vaccination in that group. A 2023 trial of the combined measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine in infants aged 5-7 months, and subsequent safety and immune studies in 2024 and 2025, produced consistent results—safety and the ability to generate antibodies were demonstrated, but a durable response and protection against hospitalization were not.
That is why the FDA does not approve MMR for routine use in healthy children younger than 12 months of age. It is also precisely why getting back to herd immunity for measles is so essential: the youngest infants can only be protected if the rest of us are immunized.
What’s the evidence for COVID-19 vaccination in infants and children? It generates robust antibodies, often higher than in adults. But clinical benefits are modest, short-lived, and inconsistent. It is nowhere near the level of proof U.S. regulators require before making a vaccine universally available to healthy kids.
Some argue that even if benefits are modest, parents and pediatricians should be free to choose. But FDA authorization is not about personal preference; it is a stamp of approval for more than 70 million healthy children. Statistical safety is not enough. At that scale, even rare risks mean real harm to real children. COVID-19 vaccines were originally authorized in the hope that immune responses would translate into population-level benefits. For healthy children, the initial optimism sparked by early encouraging signals has steadily given way to three years of disappointing clinical results.
The lessons from measles are clear: safe but minimally effective isn’t enough. We don’t authorize MMR for 5-month-olds, even to parents who might want their children to get it. COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children should be judged similarly. This is not because there is a lack of any benefit, but because it doesn’t rise to the level we use for other vaccines. Only if and when proof of clinical effectiveness becomes available should authorization be reconsidered. At this time, the FDA is right to say no.
Monique Yohanan, MD, MPH, is a senior fellow at Independent Women, a physician executive and healthcare innovation leader, and Chief Medical Officer at Adia Health.
-
Business2 days ago
Red tape is killing Canadian housing affordability
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days ago
UK Police Chief Hails Facial Recognition, Outlines Drone and AI Policing Plans
-
Health2 days ago
MAiD should not be a response to depression
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Post election report indicates Canadian elections are becoming harder to secure
-
International1 day ago
Trump to Confront Starmer Over UK Free Speech Laws During State Visit
-
Duane Rolheiser1 day ago
Unite the Kingdom Rally: demonstrators take to the streets in historical numbers to demand end to mass migration in the UK
-
Crime1 day ago
Older man arrested at Kirk shooting admits to protecting real gunman
-
MAiD1 day ago
Famous Canadian children’s author Robert Munsch says he plans to die by euthanasia