CA Principal Calls Cops Over Four-Year-Old Refusing To Wear a Mask

If Americans thought the carnival of COVID lockdown madness was over, they might remind themselves that the madness was driven by politicians and bureaucrats – and their virulence continues.

Case in point: the principal at Theuerkauf Elementary School in Mountain View, California (the home of Google), a bureaucrat who evidently felt compelled to have police escort away a four-year-old student who refused to smother his breathing holes with their magical face diaper all school day long.

Reopen California Schools August 18 tweeted the father’s video of the incident:

Principal for @mvwschools called police on a four-year old for not wearing a mask.

The officer was cordial and understanding, but the child could not stay. The child has missed school most of this week.

There is no state or county school mask mandate where this school resides. pic.twitter.com/etfXFR11sJ
— Reopen California Schools (@ReopenCASchools) August 18, 2022

The YouTube video derived from the same footage has nearly 15,000 views, and does not reflect well on the school district, Principal Michelle Williams, or the Mountain View police.

And, as the Reopen California Schools folks note at their YouTube channel, as part of the description for the vid:

“This same school allows maskless adults (to) use its gym in the evening for recreational basketball, but is forcing kids as young as four to mask indoors all day.”

Wrote the Mountain View Voice’s Zoe Morgan, at the time:

“Mountain View Whisman plans to have a mask mandate in place whenever the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows a "high" level of COVID-19 in the community. The CDC ranks the level of COVID-19 in each county nationwide as low, medium or high based on metrics that include the number of COVID-19 cases identified in the past seven days. Currently, Santa Clara County is listed in the "high" tier.”

She also reported:

“Even when the county is out of that tier, Mountain View Whisman still plans to require masks at individual schools if at least 10% of the student body is absent due to illness for three consecutive days, or if there are three or more COVID-19 cases in an individual classroom or other group within a two-week period during which time at least 5% of teachers and students on campus are infected with COVID-19.”

Which is all information that, as is often the case, begins to get people focusing on the details of the policy, rather than the immorality of the government claiming the power of force.

It's worth noting that those masks, with their “>.03 micron” standard weave, have been shown to be ineffective in stopping the .01 micron COVID virus.

Even as far back as 2003, the Australian Sunday Morning Herald published details about how the popular N95 masks not only are porous (obviously), but how, after about 20 minutes, they become saturated and pose new risks to the people mistakenly believing in their magical powers, quoting Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.:

"As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets."

This is a point which the Montreal Gazette reiterated and amplified with additional facts in March of 2020.

But, even if the masks could be useful, there is no constitutional or, more importantly, ethical justification for any government official to mandate that anyone wear them.

Even so, it turns out that the school district announced its continuation of that kind of madness on August 9, adopting what some blindly claim is a “reasonable attenuating standard” for when it will lock kids behind the face diapers for eight hours a day.

Principal Michelle Williams seems oblivious to the principles, for, in the video, she served to the boy’s dad a smorgasbord of neo-Marxist communitarian “I’m here to serve” prattle such as:

“I want him here. He is a lovely child. We are here to support and serve him. Our district’s policy hasn’t changed. I am here to serve all students on campus…”

Take note of that last bit, because it exposes the inoperability of collectivism and the fallacious nature of the term “public health.”

Later, when the cop arrives, he -- the man with the gun and badge, paid, like the teacher, through taxation and threats of government aggression against those who might prefer to keep the fruits of their labor -- offered a calm affectation of non-bias.

After telling the dad that, from what he “understands,” COVID “numbers in the school district have increased” (based on what test, and how reliable is that?), the policeman offers his pretense of “being in the middle of this tough situation,” when he is anything but “in the middle,” saying:

“I can’t say, like, what they’re doing is wrong, and I can’t say what you’re doing is wrong. And, honestly, like, both sides have valid points? For me, I just gotta make sure the rest-a, as campus, as a whole, everyone’s safe, and that kids get their education and…”

But after TWO YEARS, the officer ought to know that, even if one thought it was okay to force people to pay for the education of other people’s kids, or to force parents to pay into an administration-burdened, politically-infused “education” system, the policy of MASKING kids is not only unnecessary, based on the near ZERO risk of life-threatening illness for the kids or anyone else, it is damaging and sadistic.

And, like the principal’s “I’m here for everyone,” blather, the officer’s “Gosh, I sure am stuck, here” performance, conducted even as he forces the man to leave (the government-backing cop likely would not have pretended to be “unbiased” for long if the father had refused his “command”), reveals the key lesson about collectivism.

Note that, like the principal, even in the act of crushing the rights of the individual child and the taxpaying parent, the policeman claims, “I just gotta make sure the rest-a, as a campus, as a whole, everyone’s safe, and that kids get their education…”

That is “public education” -- collectivism akin to the term “public health.”

Neither exist.

There is no such thing as “public health,” because “the group” is merely a term applied to more than one individual, and when individuals are near each other, or put into a group by some government functionary, they don’t blend into a waxen mass. They remain individuals, endowed by their creator with their Natural Rights.

Government focus on the “health” of the “public” sees government sacrifice the individual for the group. It is an “ends justifies the means” mentality that overlooks its own inconsistency.

If the individual can be sacrificed for the “health” or the “education” of the “group,” yet the “group” is merely a term applied to a certain number of individuals, then that makes every individual a potential victim – the one to be sacrificed for the sake of the group. And once that sacrifice is committed, the state can conduct another, and another, and another.

So, both “public safety” and “public education” are oxymoronic, self-defeating, and idiotic vestiges of a collectivist mindset that should have been tossed out moments after Rousseau penned his foolish “Social Contact” in the 18th Century.

It’s not a contract if it is imposed on you.

Which reminds us that every taxpayer also is a victim of this twisted mentality.

And it will continue, long after the COVID mania subsides – as long as people don’t recognize the inherent immorality and unworkability of collectivist, force-based, government systems.