The hypocrisy during the past year from some Democratic governors lapping up power and failing to protect the most vulnerable as COVID ripped through our communities is not only evident but sickening. Governor’s Andrew Cuomo, New York; Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan; Gavin Newsom, California; Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania and Phil Murphy, New Jersey are now all facing backlash for the failures in their state and for their reckless policies.
The tragedy of lives lost, thousands of businesses shuttered, school closures and the process of rebuilding pales in comparison to the the deaths of those most vulnerable that were lost. Many of those deaths, say opponents, could have been prevented by taking appropriate measures to protect the most vulnerable in states like New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In California Newsom’s blatant ‘rules for you and not for me’ attitude has pushed Californians to the brink as they prepare for a possible recall election.
Not only were these Governor’s gaslighting the public, but they were overly restrictive with their regulations with their constituents. But what has been most deeply worrisome was what happened to their states most elderly and most susceptible. While these governors were lecturing the public on COVID rules, they themselves were failing to protect those that need it most.
It’s sheer hypocrisy and on many levels possible criminal behavior, as in the case of Cuomo. I am grateful that they are now facing investigations.
Imagine for one moment, being an elderly patient in a nursing home that was forced to face death alone. Many family and friends were not even allowed to visit in person to say their final goodbyes or comfort their loved ones as they took their last breath. The tragedy is that many of those who died may have been infected with COVID-19 because of the decision by some governors to place recovering patients in nursing homes.
And now that the fog of the war against COVID-19 is lifting, Americans are clearly seeing the hypocrisy of those lawmakers’ decisions and how they affected their communities. They shamed their citizens into lockdowns, school closures, closures of religious institutions and forced mandatory mask mandates. Those that opted not wear the masks were fined and shamed publicly. Churches that remained opened were fined. Some business owners went to jail when they refused to close what they believed was ‘essential’ to their livelihood and that of their families.
Cuomo, whose decision to allow Covid-19 patients to recover among the most vulnerable in nursing homes, led to the deaths of more than 15,000 people. In Michigan, Whitmer, who implemented some of the strictest lockdowns in the country, could herself be facing criminal charges and an investigation like Cuomo.
If Macomb county prosecutor Peter Lucido has his way, Whitmer will face charges. Lucido told a local news station that he is investigating whether Whitmer’s early handling of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities during the coronavirus pandemic could be linked to criminal charges. He pleaded with residents through the local WXYZ.com that he is limited in his own investigation into nursing home deaths and asked for their help. He said if his investigation uncovers “willful neglect of office” or “reckless endangerment of a person’s life,” he will push for criminal charges.
I certainly do hope people speak up, like Fox News Meteorologist Janice Dean did early on after her in-laws died in a nursing home after being exposed to Covid sent there by Cuomo. She went against the grain, asked the right questions and held Cuomo accountable when almost everyone was looking away. Dean is vindicated by a investigation conducted by the New York Attorney General, which discovered that Cuomo and his staff allegedly knowingly underreported the number of deaths in his state by up to 50%.
There is a now also a push for Cuomo to be removed from office and his pandemic powers have already been stripped.
Dean is also the reason, I believe, for the massive snowball effect that’s taken place to hold other Governor’s accountable for their actions.
Last week, I spent a day in the capitol of New York, Albany, asking residents what they thought of Newsom. The majority of people I spoke to wanted a full investigation into his decision to place recovering Covid patients into nursing homes and some flat out believed his decision to do so was criminal.
People are frustrated and angry. Who can blame them. I am too.
In California, Newsom is facing a similar backlash for his hypocrisy during the pandemic. His failure in manage the growing economic crisis over the past year is evident on almost every street of every major city in his state. Growing homelessness, businesses lost and citizens stifled by his own strict lockdown regulations have done little to protect those most vulnerable. Instead, a growing number of his constituents want him out of office – both Democrat and Republican.
For Newsom, a current recall effort has garnered enough signatures to trigger a special election this year. Randy Economy, a leader in the RecallGavin2020 effort, said earlier this week to reporters that roughly 1.95 million signatures had been collected with just under two weeks before the March 17 deadline.
Economy told reporters “that is more than enough to be able to have this initiative qualified for a special election later this year to let the people finally decide … what is going to happen with the fate and the future of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.”
Last week, Pennsylvania State House Republicans announced that they will begin investigating Wolf’s oversight of nursing homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
The House Government Oversight Committee said it’s looking into the Wolf administration’s oversight during the pandemic and the 12,000 coronavirus deaths have occurred in the state’s long-term care facilities. Those deaths, according to reports, represent more than half the state’s fatalities during the pandemic.
Republican lawmakers also began their first hearing Friday into New Jersey Governor Murphy’s administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like Cuomo, many residents and opponents are accusing Murphy of putting elderly patients at risk by putting COVID patients into the facilities.
Here’s the kicker: They warned us not to visit our grandparents or elderly parents, so how is it excusable that they allowed infected patients into facilities where the most vulnerable were housed.
In a four-hour hearing broadcast on Facebook, “a doctor, nursing home advocates and relatives of residents who died from the coronavirus ripped the administration’s early response as ‘anemic’ and lacking transparency and a tactical approach,” reports noted.
The residents accused Murphy, as well as his administration, of the tragedy.
It’s the outright hypocrisy and impetuous behavior of these lawmakers should be a stunning reminder to every American that you shouldn’t blindly believe and accept everything those in power say to you.
There is nothing wrong with questioning those in power who sent recovering COVID patients into nursing homes or destroyed their communities with unconstitutional mandated lockdowns.
There is nothing wrong or conspiratorial about holding the medical professionals, who have confused the public, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, accountable for what they have advised and implemented during COVID.
There is nothing wrong with questioning the origin of the virus.
All of these issues need to be investigated and a full report on the matter should be made available to the public. Transparency and trust must be re-established. If we don’t do it now, another possibly far worse COVID nightmare may exist in our future.
You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC
You may like
Multiple states launch lawsuit against Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan
Breaking Thursday, the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and South Carolina joined together to file a lawsuit against President Biden’s administration in order to stop the student loan-forgiveness program from taking effect.
“In addition to being economically unwise and downright unfair, the Biden Administration’s Mass Debt Cancellation is yet another example in a long line of unlawful regulatory actions,” argued the plaintiffs in their filing.
The attorneys general spearheading the legal challenge also submit that “no statute permits President Biden to unilaterally relieve millions of individuals from their obligation to pay loans they voluntarily assumed.”
Biden, however, has argued that he is able to unilaterally cancel student debt to mitigate the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Specifically, writes National Review, a Department of Education memo released by his administration asserts that the HEROES Act, which passed in 2003 and allows the secretary of education to provide student-debt relief “in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency,” provides the legal basis for the cancellation.
But, National Review notes that the plaintiffs point out that Biden declared in a recent 60 Minutes interview that “the pandemic is over.”
The legal brief also adds:
“The [HEROES] Act requires ED [Education Department] to tailor any waiver or modification as necessary to address the actual financial harm suffered by a borrower due to the relevant military operation or emergency… This relief comes to every borrower regardless of whether her income rose or fell during the pandemic or whether she is in a better position today as to her student loans than before the pandemic.”
Moreover, they argue that the HEROES Act was designed to allow the secretary to provide relief in individual cases with proper justification.
The first lawsuit against Biden’s executive order came Tuesday from the Pacific Legal Foundation:
“The administration has created new problems for borrowers in at least six states that tax loan cancellation as income. People like Plaintiff Frank Garrison will actually be worse off because of the cancellation. Indeed, Mr. Garrison will face immediate tax liability from the state of Indiana because of the automatic cancellation of a portion of his debt,” wrote PLF in their own brief.
The state-led lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Missouri, and asks that the court “temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin implementation and enforcement of the Mass Debt Cancellation,” and declare that it “violates the separation of powers established by the U.S. Constitution,” as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
You may like
Immigration3 days ago
IG Audit shows nonprofit wasted $17 million taxpayer dollars on hotels to not house illegal foreign nationals
War on Drugs2 days ago
‘Mass poisoning:’ Officials seize 15,000 fentanyl pills disguised as candy
Nation2 days ago
MD nuclear scientist, wife, face life in prison after pleading guilty in nuclear secrets case
Immigration4 days ago
Texas has raised over $55 million from private donations to secure border, build a wall