Anyone reading my columns no doubt recognizes that I do not trust the ability of most governments to do much of anything competently. As I’ve pointed out, the actions of US government officials during the COVID pandemic were examples of both that incompetence – and duplicity.
From the junk science that led to mask mandates…
…to false claims about the effectiveness of vaccines…
…the discovery that the vaccines were not as safe as officials claimed…
…and how the government violated the First Amendment by censoring information that conflicted with the official narrative.
As an adjunct to the topic of this column — here is an update on the lawsuit, against the social media corporations that colluded with the government Covid censorship, I mentioned in Part Two of the Facebook column. The Judge presiding over that lawsuit has enjoined the Biden administration from having contact with those social media companies while the case is pending.
The irony of the ‘July 4’ date of the order to the federal government not to engage in further censorship, is epic. Now back to the topic of this column.
Given the track record of government ineptitude regarding COVID it should come as no surprise that their lockdown mandates were wrong as well. A new report details how those lockdowns had, at best, a negligible effect on reducing COVID mortality — and that what effects it may have had could, in fact, be attributable to other factors. You can download the entire 220 page report here.
COVID restrictions were based on computer models that “experts” used to predict the number of deaths which would supposedly result without lockdowns. Government officials then relied on those “expert” predictions.
This new report reviewed COVID data from around the world, which included mortality rates from countries across the spectrum of lockdown restrictions. What it reveals is that the computer models substantially over-estimated mortality numbers.
Considering how “experts” skewed the numbers in the studies that allegedly supported mask mandates, the obvious question is — did they manipulate the computer models as well?
“There are lies, damn lies — and statistics!”
Here is the most significant conclusion from the new report:
COVID-19 lockdowns were a global policy failure of gigantic proportions… The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.
The question is — did government officials deliberately fail to question the computer models in order to advance their narrative, or are they just fools?
In my opinion, the answer is “both”.
History abounds with examples of government officials making decisions based on bad ideas propounded by “experts”. The most notorious example is “eugenics” – a term coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin.
Darwin is known for his “Theory of Evolution” which is now accepted as gospel by many – despite the fact that “theory” has never been proven, and is now in serious doubt based on new technology. (See Darwin’s Black Box by Dr Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry; and Darwin Under the Microscope by Dr James Gills, MD & Dr Tom Woodward, PhD.)
In 1869 (and re-released in 1892), Galton wrote a book, Hereditary Genius, in which he pro-claimed that evolution explained why some races were intellectually inferior to others. Galton’s theory of improving society through eugenics became fashionable in the “Progressive Era” of United States politics. (The Progressive Era lasted roughly between the 1890’s until many of its popular ideas about international relations were blown to hell in the trenches of WWI.)
Building on Galton’s premiss in 1916, American lawyer Madison Grant wrote The Passing of the Great Race, which became a best seller among American progressives. Like Galton, Grant trumpeted eugenics as the way to improve society.
An adherent of Grant, and eugenics, was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Her plan was to improve the gene pool by reducing the birth rate of those she saw as “undesirables” — such as Jews and those from eastern Europe among others.
Responding to progressive pressure to reduce the number of undesirables living here, in 1924 the United States Congress enacted an immigration law that included quotas of who could enter the country. Among those denied entrance visas into the United States under that quota system was a German family of four who had emigrated to the Netherlands – Otto Frank, his wife Edith, along with their two daughters Margot and Anne. Only Otto survived the holocaust.
The impact of eugenics on government policy was not limited to the United States. Another fervent believer in eugenics considered Grant’s book to be “a bible”. His name was Adolph Hitler.
Eugenics was the rationale for several states to legislate sterilization of the “feeble-minded”. Those laws culminated in a 1927 United State Supreme Court case, Buck v Bell, which upheld a Virginia law authorizing involuntary sterilization of a woman described thusly by the Court, “Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.”
The Court explained its reasoning for upholding that law in one of the most infamous passages ever included in a Supreme Court opinion. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote “Three generations of imbeciles are enough..” Buck v Bell has never been overturned.
There is language in that decision that could have been used to justify all sorts of legal sanctions against those who refused to conform with government COVID mandates, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices…”
We now know the government COVID narrative was consistently wrong. We also know the government colluded with social media to censor alternative evidence.
The government agency that issued the erroneous guidelines about masks, vaccines and lockdowns was the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). That same CDC has now declared that biological males can “chestfeed”.
Transgender and nonbinary-gendered individuals may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest (chestfeed). The gender identity or expression of transgender individuals is different from their sex at birth. The gender identity of nonbinary-gendered individuals does not fit neatly into either man or woman. An individual does not need to have given birth to breastfeed or chestfeed.
To do so requires the males undergo hormone therapy to induce lactation.
Those hormones are passed to the feeding newborn. There is absolutely no data on the detrimental effects, short or long term, of such hormones on infants.
I would say you can’t make this stuff up. But Monty Python did — in 1979:
To paraphrase that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: “It’s eugenics deja vu all over again!”
Gary Beatty lives between Florida and Pagosa Springs. He retired after 30 years as a prosecutor for the State of Florida, has a doctorate in law, is Board Certified in Criminal Trial law by the Florida Supreme Court, and is now a law professor.