How Will History Treat The Coronavirus Lockdown? With Prof. Denis Rancourt

You won't want to miss this very special Liberty Report! Former University of Ottawa physics professor Denis Rancourt joins today's program to examine the science behind government and media claims about the coronavirus outbreak. Does a national lockdown make any sense? Why did the scientists that governments listen to seem to get the numbers all wrong? And why have other scientists who challenged the accepted wisdom been silenced and ignored? What are the numbers? Today on the Liberty Report:



from How Will History Treat The Coronavirus Lockdown? With Prof. Denis Rancourt

Resistance Strengthening: Small Business Defying Coronavirus Lockdown

From New York to Texas and beyond, small business owners are pushing back against local and state governments who have deemed their livelihoods to be "non-essential." Can the authorities stop this growing revolt? Plus, only government could bankrupt the medical system during a "pandemic" - US hospitals going broke. Tune in to today's Liberty Report:



from Resistance Strengthening: Small Business Defying Coronavirus Lockdown

New Anti-China Propaganda Uses Russiagate Playbook

A rabid anti-China propaganda campaign has spread through the media since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The hysteria seems to be just as contagious as the virus, as Americans are bombarded with anti-China stories from the pages of The New York Times to segments on Fox News. Both Republicans and Democrats are arguing the other side is not tough enough on China as they gear up for the 2020 election.

Since Donald Trump was elected president, the unfounded claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election was spread far and wide by intelligence officials and liberal media outlets.

A common tactic used to promote the Russiagate narrative was unnamed officials making statements to the press without providing evidence or any factual basis to their claims. Another common tactic was frequent media appearances by former intelligence officials, like James Clapper and John Brennan, usually making wild accusations about Trump and Russia. These tactics are being repeated to promote an anti-China narrative.

The New York Times ran a story on April 22nd titled, "Chinese Agents Helped Spread Messages That Sowed Virus Panic in US, Officials Say." The article says rumors that were spread through text messages and social media posts in mid-March that claimed the Trump administration was going to lock down the entire country to combat coronavirus were boosted by "Chinese operatives." The authors’ sources are "six American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to publicly discuss intelligence matters."

The story is lacking in detail and provides no evidence for the officials’ claims. "The origin of the messages remains murky. American officials declined to reveal details of the intelligence linking Chinese agents to the dissemination of the disinformation, citing the need to protect their sources and methods for monitoring Beijing’s activities," the story reads. Two of the officials told the Times that "they did not believe Chinese operatives created the lockdown messages, but rather amplified existing ones."

Sensationalized reporting in the Times would not be complete without mentioning the Russians. "American officials said the operatives had adopted some of the techniques mastered by Russia-backed trolls, such as creating fake social media accounts to push messages to sympathetic Americans, who in turn unwittingly help spread them."

Ironically, the story recognizes the danger of US officials making selective leaks to the media. "Foreign policy analysts are worried that the Trump administration may politicize intelligence work or make selective leaks to promote an anti-China narrative … American officials in the past have selectively passed intelligence to reporters to shape the domestic political landscape." The Times uses the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an example of the dangers of selective leaks, ignoring the past four years of Russiagate stories that plagued its pages.

On April 17th, Fox News Host Tucker Carlson had former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright on his show to deliver some wild accusations about US politicians and the Chinese government. Wright insinuated that some members of Congress might be agents of China’s intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security (MSS). Carlson explained to Wright that the show reached out to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other elected officials to ask if they’ve had contact with any Chinese officials since the coronavirus outbreak began. Carlson said they did not respond and asked Wright, "What do you think we should infer from that?"

Wright responded, "I think that they’re nervous. I think there are a bunch of people who, because they’re either useful idiots or they have some degree of knowledge and relationships behind the scenes with the Chinese government. Some of them in fact could be Chinese agents of the MSS." Wright’s language comes straight from the Russiagate playbook. Intelligence officials and media pundits often referred to Trump as a "useful idiot" for Moscow, and some even speculated that the president is a "Russian agent."

Trump’s anti-Russia policies show that he is not working in the White House on behalf of Vladimir Putin. Similarly, anti-China legislation that has recently passed through the House and Senate makes it unlikely any MSS agents are working in the halls of Congress.

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed unanimously through the Senate last year and had one lone nay vote in the House from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). The act, which was signed into law by President Trump, requires the State Department to prepare an annual report on the autonomy of Hong Kong from mainland China. The act also requires the Commerce Department to report on "China’s efforts to use Hong Kong to evade US export controls." The bill says the president shall present Congress with a list of any individuals that violate human rights in Hong Kong. Any findings that are unsatisfactory to the US could result in sanctions.

The Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act was also passed unanimously through the Senate, and again, Rep. Massie was the only one to vote against the bill in the House. This bill, which has not made it to President Trump’s desk, would require the US to impose sanctions and export restrictions over China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in the western autonomous region of Xinjiang.

Rep. Massie, the sole dissenting voice in Congress, did not vote against these bills because of any loyalty to Beijing or Xi Jinping. "When our government meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries, it invites those governments to meddle in our affairs," Massie wrote on Twitter, explaining his votes.

The Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, which was signed into law by President Trump in March, passed unanimously through both the House and Senate, with Rep. Massie finally falling in line with his colleague’s anti-China policy. The TAIPEI Act says the US should "help strengthen Taiwan’s diplomatic relationships and partnerships around the world."

Taiwan remains the most sensitive issue between the US and China, since Beijing considers the island to be a part of China. Although the US does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, Washington supplies the island with arms and frequently sails warships through the Taiwan strait, drawing the ire of Beijing. No members of Congress speak out against these provocations. Like the accusations about Trump and Russia, the idea that Congress is crawling with agents of Beijing is easily disproven by actual policy.

Tucker Carlson did not challenge any of Wright’s outrageous claims but instead nodded along. Since the start of the outbreak, Carlson’s show has focused on putting all the blame for the coronavirus pandemic on Beijing. Carlson’s recent content reflects the strategy of the White House. The Daily Beast obtained internal White House documents in March that showed the administration was pushing US officials to blame China for a "cover-up" in the early days of the outbreak. The strategy has proven useful as many pro-Trump media outlets put Beijing’s response to the pandemic under a microscope, and largely ignore the US government’s early missteps.

Politico obtained a memo sent by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to GOP campaigns. The memo outlines an anti-China strategy for Republicans running for office in 2020. The document advises candidates to blame the pandemic on China, say Democratic opponents are too soft on China, and advocate for sanctions against Beijing. The memo is full of strong rhetoric like, "China is not an ally, and they’re not just a rival — they are an adversary and the Chinese Communist Party is our enemy."

The GOP guidelines are similar to the rhetoric coming from China hardliners like former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. In March 2019, Bannon and neoconservative Frank Gaffney founded the Committee on Present Danger: China, a think-tank that identifies China as the greatest "existential threat" to the United States. In his almost-daily podcast, Bannon rails against Beijing and pins all the blame for the pandemic on China. "The Chinese Communist Party is at war with their people, they’re at war with the world, and they’re at war with you … You may not have an interest in the Chinese Communist Party but its destroyed your life. OK? Your economic life, your spiritual life, your social life. The destruction is from Beijing," Bannon said in a recent episode.

Republicans and right-wingers are not the only ones looking to attack China this election season. The Biden campaign released an ad on April 18th that attacked Trump for his response to the virus. The ad said, "Trump rolled over for the Chinese" and criticized how much the president praised China’s handling of the pandemic early on. "Trump praised the Chinese 15 times in January and February as the coronavirus spread across the world," the ad said.

The anti-China propaganda seems to be turning public opinion against Beijing. A new poll from the Pew Research Center that surveyed 1,000 adults throughout March found that 66 percent have an unfavorable view of China, an increase of 14 percent since Pew last asked the question in 2018. Nine out of 10 adults surveyed view China as a threat, including 62 percent who see China as a major threat.

China may have made some mistakes in its early response to the virus, but that does not excuse the US government’s lack of preparedness, and treating the pandemic as an attack sets a dangerous precedent for future outbreaks. The strategy could backfire on Washington if any future pandemics originate in the US.

Like Russiagate, the anti-China propaganda will serve as a useful tool for a national security state that is looking to focus more on great power competition. The Pentagon identifies China as its number one priority and is looking to increase its footprint in the Indo-Pacific region. The constant propaganda will make that increased presence more palatable to the American people. But that increased presence will bring more confrontation between the US and China, and bring the region and the world closer to nuclear war.

Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com.

from New Anti-China Propaganda Uses Russiagate Playbook

Narrative Managers Argue China-Like Internet Censorship Is Needed

Neoconservative publication The Atlantic has published an article authored by two university professors titled “Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal”, subtitled “In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the US was wrong.”

The article is actually worth reading in full, not just because it’s outrage porn for anyone who values human communication that is unregulated by oligarchs and government agencies, but because it’s actually packed full of extensively sourced information about the way Silicon Valley tech giants are collaborating with western governments to censor speech. The only difference between this article and something you might read on some libertarian website is that this article argues that all of these regulations on speech are a good thing.

Here’s an archive of the article if you don’t want to give clicks to The Atlantic, whose editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg once assured the world that “the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.” Do give it a look if this interests you and you have time.

Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman, credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I

— Anthony L. Fisher (@anthonyLfisher) April 26, 2020

“In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong,” argue the article’s authors, one of whom is a former Bush administration lawyer. “Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”

The article paints an accurate picture of the ways in which supposedly independent social media platforms have been collaborating with governments and with each other to regulate speech and have increased that collaboration during the Covid-19 pandemic, noting how “In March 2019, Zuckerberg invited the government to regulate ‘harmful content’ on his platform” and how “As in other contexts, Facebook relies on fact-checking organizations and ‘authorities’ (from the World Health Organization to the governments of US states) to ascertain which content to downgrade or remove.”

“These platforms have engaged in ‘strategic collaboration’ with the federal government, including by sharing information, to fight foreign electoral interference,” The Atlantic reports after outlining ways in which Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have been censoring speech in “aggressive but still imperfect steps to fend off foreign adversaries.”

“The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks,” the article’s authors assert. “And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded, the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.”

Last May, a govt org outlined an extremely Orwellian vision for what the US must to do to win "the tech war" against China in AI. It essentially called to remake the entire American economy and society. Now, thanks to Covid19,their vision is taking shape.https://t.co/fhWkyQR5n3

— Whitney Webb (@_whitneywebb) April 20, 2020

This article comes out days after journalist Whitney Webb published another article worth reading titled “Techno-Tyranny: How The US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision”. Webb details how FOIA-obtained document by a US government organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) argues for the need to implement authoritarian measures like increased surveillance more in line with those used in China, in order to prevent the PRC from technologically surpassing the United States.

Webb notes for example how the document “cites the use of mass surveillance on China’s ‘huge population base’ is an example of how China’s ‘scale of consumer market’ advantage allowing ‘China to leap ahead’ in the fields of related technologies, like facial recognition.”

We’re also seeing an increase in surveillance being pushed for in a new report by the think tank Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, arguing that a drastic increase in tech surveillance is “a price worth paying” in order to fight Covid-19. Which is of course hilarious, because having the think tank of a Bush lapdog Prime Minister argue that more surveillance is a price worth paying to stop coronavirus is a lot like a bunch of muggers arguing that time saved by cutting through dark alleyways is worth the increased risk of mugging.

So that’s great. We’re seeing mainstream narrative managers shriek about the need for new cold war escalations against China’s bad, bad authoritarian government, while simultaneously arguing that western governments should espouse Beijing’s worst authoritarian impulses. This as we’ve discussed previously is because consent needs to be manufactured in order for the US-centralized empire to take drastic steps to prevent China from surpassing it and creating a multipolar world, and the freer people are to think and act and organize, the harder that’s going to be.

Oligarchs have no business controlling what we can and cannot say to each other. Governments have no business bringing more and more transparency to us while bringing more and more opacity to themselves. This is ugly, it is abusive, and it must end.

Freedom of speech is actually about freedom of thought. Speech is the carrying agent of thought; controlling human communication is actually about controlling the spread of ideas. Censorship is about controlling the thoughts that the public think in their heads. Speech control is mind control.

Reprinted with permission from CaitlinJohnstone.com.
Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal.

from Narrative Managers Argue China-Like Internet Censorship Is Needed

Next in Coronavirus Tyranny: Forced Vaccinations and 'Digital Certificates'

In my first week in the House of Representatives in 1976, I cast one of the two votes against legislation appropriating funds for a swine flu vaccination program. A swine flu outbreak was then dominating headlines, so most in DC were frantic to “do something” about the virus.

Unfortunately, the hastily developed and rushed-into-production swine flu vaccine was not only ineffective, it was dangerous. Approximately 50 people who received the vaccine subsequently contracted Guillain-Barré syndrome, a potentially fatal form of paralysis. According to an expert with the Centers for Disease Control, the incidence of Guillain-Barré was four times higher among those who received the swine flu vaccine than in the general population.

That sad history may soon repeat itself. Right now, governments and private industries are working to rapidly develop and deploy a coronavirus vaccine. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who is a major funder of these efforts, has suggested everyone who receives a vaccine be issued a “digital certificate” proving he has been vaccinated. Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose record of wrong predictions makes him the Bill Kristol of epidemiology, also wants individuals to carry some proof they have been vaccinated.

Another authoritarian proposal floated to deal with coronavirus is to force everyone to download a phone app that will track their movements. This would allow government officials to identify those who may have been near anyone who may have had coronavirus. Such mandatory “contact tracing” is an assault on our privacy and liberty.

Vaccines can improve health. For example, vaccines helped reduce the incidence of diseases like polio. But not all vaccines are safe and effective for all people. Furthermore, certain modern practices, such as giving infants multiple vaccines at one time, may cause health problems. The fact that vaccines may benefit some people, or even most people, does not justify government forcing individuals to be vaccinated. It also does not justify vaccinating children against their parents’ wishes. And it certainly does not justify keeping individuals and families in involuntary quarantine because they do not have “digital certificates” proving they have had their shots.

If government can force individuals to receive medical treatment against their will, then there is no reason why government cannot force individuals to buy medical insurance, prohibit them from owning firearms, dictate their terms of employment, and prevent them from taking arguably harmful actions like smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk. Similarly, if government can override parents’ wishes regarding medical treatment for their children, then there is no reason why government cannot usurp parental authority in other areas, such as education.

Proponents of mandatory vaccines and enhanced surveillance are trying to blackmail the American people by arguing that the lockdown cannot end unless we create a healthcare surveillance state and make vaccination mandatory. The growing number of Americans who are tired of not being able to go to work, school, or church, or even to take their children to a park because of government mandates should reject this “deal.” Instead, they should demand an immediate end to the lockdowns and the restoration of individual responsibility for deciding how best to protect their health.

from Next in Coronavirus Tyranny: Forced Vaccinations and 'Digital Certificates'

RPI's McAdams on SkyNews Australia: 'Experts' Totally Failed on Covid-19

How will the United States manage opening up its economy after the coronavirus shutdown? Ron Paul Institute Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed on SkyNews Australia on how incredibly wrong the "experts" have been on the "pandemic" of 2020. Americans are furious at the mistakes of their government and are out in the streets demanding their rights to go back to work:



from RPI's McAdams on SkyNews Australia: 'Experts' Totally Failed on Covid-19

Some Washington State Sheriffs Begin Refusing To Enforce Gov. Inslee’s Lockdown Orders

To date, three county sheriffs in Washington State broke ranks and announced they will not enforce some of Governor Inslee’s executive orders relating to his several, and increasingly frequent lockdown orders–proclaimed under the auspices of state of emergency declarations to the COVID-19 situation. The dominant subject of dissent among these law enforcement officials centers around what are regarded as unconstitutional intrusions by the governor enacted against the citizens of their respective counties and the inconsistency of regulations applied unequally by the state.

It is my belief that unless a strong reversal of Governor Inslee’s resolve to remain steadfast in his prosecution of ordinary Washingtonians is not fielded soon, the “insubordination” as he claims will only grow and serve to weaken his position, adding spark to a movement against him and his office if it continues in its present form for months.

The time has come for the governor to put his ego aside. For if he chooses to adversarily engage these sheriffs and others who will come to join them he will lose in the courts of public opinion of these various counties.

For those unfamiliar with the make up of Washington State’s law enforcement structure I will provide a very rudimentary primer for the purpose of brevity. The state is subdivided into thirty-nine counties, all of which presently have an elected sheriff. Under RCW 36.28.010: “The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of his or her office…”

The sheriff is not generally an appointed position, as is the Chief of the Washington State Patrol, who is appointed by the governor and city chiefs of police by their respective mayors or councils. Sheriffs serve both the civil process and criminal departments, act as agents of the district and superior courts and in most cases maintain the county’s jails. They are also tasked by statute with serving public health directives and orders of the county health department. They are not subordinate to the purview of the office of the governor.

As elected officials, their realm is largely separated from that of the county commissioners. Unless there might be in the case of a home rule type of charter of a small town, (which I have not ever heard of such a case) they are the only elected general authority law enforcement officers of the state–and are generally answerable to the voters of their county. In a review of the various applicable Revised Codes of Washington I was unable in fact to locate any provision granting the office of the governor any authority to modify or preempt the duties of any sheriff in the state acting under the duties of their office as tempered by the state and federal constitutions. The governor may direct the State Patrol, the Washington State Guard, and the Washington National Guard, but he does not control the thirty-nine sheriffs.

Statutory provisions notwithstanding, there remains an unquestionable social matter relating to the office of Sheriff in the state’s counties, especially those of Eastern Washington and other rural areas.

Culturally in these areas sheriffs command a great amount of clout and respect among the ordinary citizens of their county. While most probably might not know who the chief of police is in other towns within the county, nearly all know who “their” sheriff is. The understanding is that the sheriff serves them; not the governor, not the county commissioners, but the citizens themselves. While the deputies and city officers might be somewhat faceless agents of their agencies, the sheriff tends to be, or at least perceived to be, part of their personal social arenas. This is not to say that such beliefs are universally held, and not all are liked by all citizens, but people in most of the non-metropolitan counties tend to identify the sheriff as their own. From a political perspective, a sheriff can be a very difficult opponent if chosen to contend with and certainly not one to dismiss without consequence. The sheriff is among the community for everything from general law enforcement, to participation in civic activities, fairs, social clubs, school programs of even small communities, and is approachable and not removed to the state capitol as is sometimes perceived to be the case with the governor’s office.

Having seen personally the decimation of jobs, denial of basic liberty, and countless and conflicting orders coming every few days out of the governor’s office, several sheriffs began taking exception to what their constituents are presently enduring. While certainly none of these men question the emergency nature of containing the pandemic, they see themselves, it seems, to be forced into an unenviable position of being charged with forcing unethical and unconstitutional mandates upon their communities. To them in its most basic form is infringing on the constitutional rights of the people, which every law enforcement officer in the state is charged in their oath of office to uphold. To many professional law enforcement officers it is counter to police culture to force a person trying to earn an honest living through ordinary employment to face jailing simply for trying to put food on the table of their families, or simple be let alone to pursue ordinary happiness and not bother anyone else. They are being told by Governor Inslee to upheave the life of the average person with increasingly less concrete justification. That is not something that sits well with most professional police officers.

The seeds for this type of dissent by some Eastern Washington sheriffs began last year with the passing of I-1639, which greatly restricted firearms rights in the state. About a dozen or more sheriffs, mostly in rural counties, refused to enforce the restrictions against the people, citing that the provisions violated both the federal and state constitutional right to bear arms. We are beginning to see an analogue with this in today’s declarations of emergency. It is perceived by the dissent as an unjust action against law abiding citizens, likely unconstitutional, and they are not going to be coerced into enforcing this.

In a Facebook posting, Snohomish County Sheriff Fortney Wrote of his dissent and how his agency is managing the outbreak:

Snohomish County Residents and Business Owners,

I just watched the Governor’s speech to Washingtonian’s regarding our approach to getting Washington back in business and I am left to wonder if he even has a plan? To be quite honest I wasn’t even sure what he was trying to say half of the time. He has no plan. He has no details. This simply is not good enough in times when we have taken such drastic measures as the suspension of constitutional rights. I wrote most of this about two weeks ago but I decided to wait out of respect for the Governor and my own misguided hope that each day he did a press conference he would say something with some specificity on getting Washington back to work. After what I witnessed tonight I can no longer stay silent as I’m not even sure he knows what he is doing or knows what struggles Washingtonian’s face right now.

I want to start by saying this virus is very real and sadly, it has taken 97 lives in Snohomish County. This is a very serious issue and the appropriate precautions need to be taken to protect our most vulnerable populations. However, our communities have already shown and continue to show they understand the severity of the situation and are doing all they can already to keep themselves, their families and neighbors safe and healthy.

I am worried about the economy and I am worried about Washingtonian’s that need to make a living for their family. As more data floods in week by week and day by day about this pandemic I think it is clear that the “models” have not been entirely accurate. While that is okay, we cannot continue down the same path we have been on if the government reaction does not fit the data or even worse, the same government reaction makes our situation worse.

As elected leaders I think we should be questioning the Governor when it makes sense to do so. Are pot shops really essential or did he allow them to stay in business because of the government taxes received from them? That seems like a reasonable question. If pot shops are essential, then why aren’t gun shops essential? Our Governor has told us that private building/construction must stop as it is not essential, but government construction is okay to continue. So let me get this right, according to the Governor if you are employed or contracted by the government to build government things you can still make a living for your family in spite of any health risk. If you are a construction worker in the private sector you cannot make a living and support your family because the health risk is too high. This contradiction is not okay and in my opinion is bordering on unethical.

As I arrive to work at the courthouse, I see landscapers show up each day to install new landscape and maintain our flowerbeds. How has Governor Inslee deemed this essential work? However, a father who owns a construction company and works alone while outdoors is not allowed to run his business to make a living to provide for his wife and children? How has Governor Inslee deemed thousands of Boeing employees who work inside a factory building airplanes essential? But building residential homes is not essential? If a factory with 20,000+ employees each day can implement safe practices to conduct normal business operations, I am entirely confident that our small business owners and independent contractors are more than capable of doing the same.

If this Coronavirus is so lethal and we have shut down our roaring economy to save lives, then it should be all or nothing. The government should not be picking winners or losers when it comes to being able to make an income for your family. If the virus is so lethal it shouldn’t matter whether you are building a school for the government, building a new housing development, restaurant owner, or you happen to be an independent contractor. To the contrary, if the virus is proving to not be as lethal as we thought, maybe it’s time for a balanced and reasonable approach to safely get our economy moving again and allowing small businesses to once again provide an income for their families and save their businesses. This is what I hoped for from the Governor tonight but he is not prepared or ready to make these decisions. If we are going to allow government contractors and pot shops to continue to make a living for their families, then it is time to open up this freedom for other small business owners who are comfortable operating in the current climate. This is the great thing about freedom. If you are worried about getting sick you have the freedom to choose to stay home. If you need to make a living for your family and are comfortable doing so, you should have the freedom to do so.

As I have previously stated, I have not carried out any enforcement for the current a stay-at-home order. As this order has continued on for well over a month now and a majority of our residents cannot return to work to provide for their families, I have received a lot of outreach from concerned members of our community asking if Governor Inslee’s order is a violation of our constitutional rights.

As your Snohomish County Sheriff, yes I believe that preventing business owners to operate their businesses and provide for their families intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am greatly concerned for our small business owners and single-income families who have lost their primary source of income needed for survival.

As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion. We have the right to peaceably assemble. We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to attend church service of any denomination. The impacts of COVID 19 no longer warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights.

Along with other elected Sheriffs around our state, the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights. I strongly encourage each of you to reach out and contact your councilmembers, local leaders and state representatives to demand we allow businesses to begin reopening and allow our residents, all of them, to return to work if they choose to do so.

The great thing about Snohomish County government is we have all worked very well together during this crisis. I’m not saying we agree all of the time, I’m saying we have the talent and ability to get this done for Snohomish County! This is not a time to blindly follow, this is a time to lead the way.
Sheriff Adam Fortney

For a statement of Okanogan County Sheriff Anthony Hawley on his interpretation of the COVID-19 challenge and his declaration of non-enforcement of punitive measures against his constituents, please click HERE.

It seems clear, at least to me, that these sheriffs are put into a difficult position, they uphold the fact that citizens of their counties are trying to manage containment of the pandemic but see unreasonable impositions forced onto the public by the governor and proclaim their frustration with the open ended timeframe and lack of inherency of the nearly twenty declarations of restrictions on the public and businesses.

Moving behind this the office of the governor has I believe little recourse if a sheriff or his deputies decline to initiate a prosecution against a citizen or business. Barring a court order, the governor has no authority to require a sheriff or his/her deputies to enforce a statute or proclamation. The courts permit law enforcement officers generally a wide degree of discretion in enforcing criminal laws, that is without a warrant or specific statutory mandate such as is the case with mandatory arrest of primary aggressors in domestic violence incidents. In fact the courts have held this discretion to be manifest even among individual officers and their department’s policies. (The State Patrol several years ago could not require a mandatory towing policy of vehicles in certain incidents due to this violating the discretion authority of an individual trooper). I do not also believe the governor’s office will prevail if it chooses to secure writs of mandamus against dissenting sheriffs, to compel enforcement of the governor’s declarations of state of emergency. In the last two years the appellate courts in Washington generally have been against the use of mandamus as a primary means of compelling compliance, when all other conventional means of redress through the court systems have not been fully utilized.

There also remains the potential for precedent bound against the state if the governor chooses to challenge these sheriffs and others who take exception. It is well-known that bad state actions lead surely to bad precedent and the novelty of what has taken place recently is ripe for court intervention and interpretation. For me I see the governor taking a very broad brush to a problem that could have been contained without the excessive infringement on civil rights. If one were to look at the State of Emergency statutes in the RCW, the sense is that the construction of this statute was intended to be a response to insurrection, riots, and great disasters resulting in severe public disorder–and then crafted to be limited in scope to only areas demonstratably affected by such disorder. That is not the case presently. There has been no rioting in the streets, no public melee, and no wanton destruction by marauding actors. We’ve seen only the bad effects of a virus infection that spreads worse than most but we are seeing officials taking the strongest enforcement aspects of the law and applying it wantonly against everyone, everywhere in the state. That threat is waning but very little is being done to curtail the restrictions. Yes, yesterday Governor Inslee stated he would open construction jobs, after the construction lobby and industry met with him, but the shopkeeper who sells widgets in Pasco must keep his business closed. So what does it take to do business in Washington–Have a powerful lobby or a good product or service? And what favor should they pay in return for the governor’s generosity?

The first week of next month constitutes a formerly declared end date for the most recent general proclamation. I believe the governor’s goodwill to maintain the bulwark of his restrictions on liberty will quickly wane if he declares another open ended general denial of freedom to the public, and more public officials such as these sheriffs could join the ranks of those who oppose him. The governor might win with some news outlets and those in comfortable stations in large cities but if he chooses to confront a sheriff in his county over a constitutional rights issue Mr. Inslee will suffer a humiliating defeat in the court of public opinion in those localities. He will look rather foolish making demands that nobody will listen to. That will not serve the public well if there is an actual emergency that needs to be countered and few people believe that it is serious because they have exhausted their trust in him. He should remember that the state’s sheriff’s answer to the voters, not to him. It is quite self-evident where their loyalty remains.

I’ve done some rather informal talks with tradespeople, business owners, and other regular folks in five counties over the past couple weeks while travelling on business. I can say that nearly everyone I spoke with was trying to do the right thing in protecting themselves and others from this virus and they believe in what they are doing. But ALL OF THEM have told me that they feel what has been mandated upon them is untenable, and/or detrimental to themselves, their jobs, or their employers. Their patience is wearing thin. If the governor continues to restrict all Washingtonians the perceived problem will transfer from that of the COVID-19 virus directly to the politician himself who caused nearly all of this economic fallout by proclamation: Governor Jay Inslee. It will not be the local county sheriff who gets the blame for this mess.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

from Some Washington State Sheriffs Begin Refusing To Enforce Gov. Inslee’s Lockdown Orders