What's Going On Here?

God bless Tucker Carlson for raising the big questions. Three days ago he asked: What is behind all this talk of mandatory participation in a medical experiment? 

Government forced sterilization, what's keeping them from forcing vaccines?

We specialize in the obvious, so tonight we’d like to begin with the most obvious observation of all: force works. ...  

If you tell [people] they have to take a dose of experimental medicine, for example, otherwise they can’t have a job, and their kids can’t be educated, most of them will take it. And in fact, most of them have. ... Try to think of anything else that 67% of American adults have done recently. 

... There are still holdouts. These are not people who haven’t heard of the vaccine or can’t afford it, or can’t just find a dose. It’s free, it’s everywhere and the media never stop talking about it. Every news hour is a Pfizer commercial. 

These are people who just don’t want to take it. Many of them have already recovered from COVID and have active antibodies. They don’t need the vaccine. Should people take medicine they don’t need? Apparently, they don’t think so. 

Others may have religious objections. That used to be considered a valid reason, back when our leaders acknowledged God is more powerful than themselves. Still, others may have noticed the vaccine was developed very quickly — the first universal coronavirus vaccine ever — and still to this day has not received FDA approval. Maybe that gives them pause. Maybe there are other reasons, including the stunningly high death rate on the government’s vaccine harm database, or the reports of young people developing cardiac emergencies in response to the shot. Maybe all of the above. We don’t know, and actually, at this point, it doesn’t matter. The [Baidan regime] is no longer accepting excuses.  

On CNN this morning, the secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, not a doctor, a politician, announced he plans to make every last American take this drug. ... 

...

..., he’s saying the government has spent so much money on the coronavirus, that the Baidan administration has a right to go door-to-door to intimidate you into taking the vaccine and keep track of you if you don’t. ... 

Savor the reasoning here for a moment. ... As it happens, the federal government spends huge amounts of tax dollars fighting all sorts of diseases, not just COVID. ... Each one kills a lot of people, in some cases far more than COVID has. 

So, does the Baidan Administration have a right, based on the money they spend fighting these diseases, to your medical information? Do they have a right to know your HIV status? Why not? Can HHS force you to take antibiotics for your TB? Xanax for your anxiety? Thorazine for your mania? And while we’re at it, why are we letting irresponsible, defective people reproduce? Vagrants, mental patients, even QAnon people, can all have children? Why’s that? Why aren’t we sterilizing them? 

Sound crazy? It’s happened before, on a huge scale.  

ANTHONY FAUCI: It`s easy to get, it`s free, and it`s readily available. So, you know, you`ve got to ask, what is the problem? Get over it. Get over this political statement. Just get over it. 

Get over it. You don’t have a right to disagree. 

This is a well-trod road we’re on, and it’s a scary one. ...  

At this point Tucker brings up--in no way coincidentally--the notorious judicial patron saint of progressives, the patron saint for progressive governmental coercion of the citizenry, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The case he brings up, after an intro, is the notorious case of forced sterilizations. Yes, the Nazis did it--but we American Exceptionals did it before the Nazis did. It's worth reading the Wikipedia account of that case. Note well how the case was brought, what the reasoning was. It should remind you of other progressive initiatives. It should also remind you that progs never give up:

Buck v. Bell

In 1927, Holmes wrote the 8–1 majority opinion in Buck v. Bell case that upheld the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 and the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck who was claimed to be mentally defective. Later scholarship has shown that the suit was collusive, in that "two eugenics enthusiasts ... had chosen Buck as a bit player in a test case that they had devised," and "had asked Buck's guardian to challenge [the Virginia sterilization law]. In addition, Carrie Buck was probably of normal intelligence. The argument made on her behalf was principally that the statute requiring sterilization of institutionalized persons was unconstitutional, as a violation of what today is called "substantive due process." Holmes repeated familiar arguments that statutes would not be struck down if they appeared on their face to have a reasonable basis. In support of his argument that the interest of "public welfare" outweighs the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:

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, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Sterilization rates under eugenics laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Oklahoma statute that provided for the sterilization of "habitual criminals."

Buck v. Bell continues to be cited occasionally in support of due process requirements for state interventions in medical procedures. For instance, in 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Buck v. Bell to protect the constitutional rights of a woman coerced into sterilization without procedural due process. The court stated that error and abuse will result if the state does not follow the procedural requirements, established by Buck v. Bell, for performing an involuntary sterilization. Buck v. Bell was also cited briefly, though not discussed, in Roe v. Wade, in support of the proposition that the Court does not recognize an "unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases". However, although Buck v. Bell has not been overturned, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case out of existence."

Two brief quotes from previous posts to drive the point home:

It seems we live in a world gone mad, run by mad scientists, mad eugenicists, mad financiers, mad clerics, and mad politicians. I'm sure I've left a whole bunch of madmen out, but you get the idea.

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power ..."

 

Onward with Tucker:

..., and more than 60,000 American women were sterilized by the government against their will. 

Things like that tend to happen when a distracted citizen population allows the government to dictate what medical procedures they get, what drugs they take. This is a well-known and horrifying chapter in American history, so you’d think the news media might point this out. But just the opposite. Just yesterday, the saddest of the CNN anchors begs the administration to make vaccines mandatory: 

... 

The media demanding forced vaccinations. That shouldn’t surprise you. They’re not in the business to inform the public, they’re in the business for power. ... 

Any cursory survey of history should convince you that progressives have always been "in the business" for power. They want to tell other people what to do, and they want to be obeyed. Call it older sister syndrome. Or big brother syndrome. Writ large.

 

What’s interesting is no other organized groups of sensible people who aren’t emotionally damaged like your average cable news anchor, none of them are saying anything either. Why not? 

Veterans' groups, for example, have stayed silent as the Pentagon floats the idea of mandatory vaccinations for all soldiers. Now, there’s zero scientific evidence that this could be necessary for any health-related reason whatsoever, but they’re pushing forward.

...

Have you seen this movie before? ... The Pentagon has forced soldiers to take untested experimental vaccines before, it happened in Iraq. Troops there had to take the anthrax vaccine. What happened? 

Many of those soldiers are eligible for disability benefits through the VA, because that vaccine caused serious long-term complications -- including infertility, lupus, paralysis, blindness, and neurological damage. 

Those effects weren't obvious at first. They took years to surface. But on CNN, military analysts ignore that, and are instead begging for the Pentagon to force another drug on soldiers -- and if they don't comply, they should be arrested immediately.

STEVE WOODSMALL, U.S. AIR FORCE VETERAN: The president has the power to waive that and make those vaccines mandatory. ... I think he should show the leadership and just go ahead and waive the informed consent requirement and go ahead and make that mandatory just from a system standpoint. And then those who decide that they're not going to take it are literally in violation of a lawful order and then they can face consequence under the uniform code of military justice. 

You can go to prison for not taking the vaccine. It’s funny, you invite someone like that on your show, he says something like that out loud, with a television camera in the room, you don’t pause and say ‘excuse me, that’s lunacy,’ no one says anything. Court Martials for anyone who refuses to take an experimental vaccine to stop a pandemic that has already ended. 

What’s going on here? It’s so obviously unnecessary and vindictive that it makes you wonder what this is really about. At the very moment that the risk for young people dying from the coronavirus hits zero, they're telling us that soldiers should be arrested and go to jail if they don't get the vaccine. They're telling you that you'll end up in a government database if you don't comply, and that government agents will be showing up and knocking on your door. What's really going on?  

I'll take a stab at answering these questions. 

It's about a self-designated "progressive" elite that believes it deserves to rule the proles, the deplorables. They believe they are so enlightened that they deserve to tell the rest of us what to do--and that the rest of us should be forced to knuckle under. 

Their ideal is a society marching forward in lockstep into a progressive future--as they define it. Why the obvious vindictiveness against those who object to participating in an unnecessary medical experiment? It's simply to make an example of dissenters, to stamp out all dissent, all resistance. Resistance is reserved to the elite. It takes a village.