New York: Where politicians consider criminals their base and ordinary citizens their enemy


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Like the Democrats running California, the reaction of the Democrats running New York to the Wuhan virus has nicely revealed who they consider their base, and who they consider their enemies:

The first story is one of several from New York. Even as the Democrats in charge have moved to place all citizens under house arrest, they also seem to think releasing criminals from jail (the perfect type of quarantine) is a good idea.

No one should harbor any doubts about where the Democrats loyalties lie. They are not really interested in saving lives. They are interested in stamping a jack boot on the face of every decent person. And they know that if their own efforts to impose martial law fail, they know that releasing a lot of violent criminals surely will help.

Share

26 comments

  • Cotour

    This is the “Progressive” agenda manifested.

    Up is down, black is white, right is left, good is bad.

    They can not help themselves, its in their nature and their entire theory of operation is offensive to freedom and Liberty.

    This is also the nature of the beast, two peas in a pod.

  • wayne

    A repeat from me, but very appropriate—

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe
    “Absurdistan” The Music Video
    https://youtu.be/8CvbDOJT1ro
    4:33

  • wayne

    “There is something extraordinarily dangerous about totalitarian Utopian visions.”
    Jordan Peterson (excerpt)
    https://youtu.be/8B7Gt-yxZXg
    6:30

  • David K

    I’d like to see some data on how many of those released stay in quarantine compared to the general population.

    What are the cops going to do if they are out on the street all day and night and break quarantine assuming they don’t commit more crimes? Re-arrest and re-release them?

  • Ian C.

    I want to point out that it was in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and America that the gatherings of religious fellas acted as corona super hubs.
    This Christian community (Shincheonji Church of Jesus) that initially infected hundreds and distributed it through South Korea and even outside of it. This door knob licking event (to demonstrate that their faith is stronger than some bat soup virus) in Qom (Iran), which turned into a mass grave shortly after. There were several smaller ones (with similar effects, just smaller) that I don’t remember right now.
    Technically the various carnivals (e.g., Rhineland in Germany, which turned into a corona center, or the Carnival in Rio, another outbreak center, or Mardi Gras in New Orleans, which now sees some action) or political demonstrations (the huge Women’s Day March in Madrid, now the dead are piling up) belong into the same category.

    Considering all this, I’d threaten to close down religious and ideological gathering places (permanently) as well when they continue to ignore those temporary measures. The idea is to reduce potentially infectious contacts until things are more under control and thus businesses, clubs, schools etc. get closed. What special rights should religious groups have to run counter those measures? The virus doesn’t apply to them? How entitled do they think are they?

  • Ian C: No U.S. government official has the power, ever, to “permanently” shut down any religion, anywhere. There is something called the first amendment that forbids such tyrannical action.

    In extreme emergencies (which I continue to believe this is not), the government has the power to temporarily shutter such events. The key word is “temporarily.” New York’s mayor made it a point to threaten permanent closure, an abuse of power he should be called on.

  • commodude

    Robert,

    It’s incredibly easy to “put the skeer” in people when they’re lead by the nose by the media. It’s extremely difficult to un-scare them.

    This herd reaction on display is a blueprint for tyrants on how to control a population more interested in safety than freedom. We’re seeing exactly how fragile our rights are, and how uncaring most of the populace is in regards to the rights that were bought dearly with the blood of our ancestors.

  • Ian C.

    Bob, I’m willing to assume that the choice of “permanent” was meant to emphasize the seriousness of the threat (that would be my intention if I’d make this threat). I guess your focus is on the threat (and you’re actually right that the wording is wrong and harmful), while mine was on the behavior of such groups, so no real disagreement here.

    In practice, what would a permanent shut down mean (honestly asking)? Not a religion would be terminated but a specific religious organization (or chapter of it). What could they do? Disband the organization, seize its assets, fine the legally responsible leaders?

  • Cotour

    Ian C:

    Nothing much like what you describe would happen, why?

    Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the mayor nor the president, nor the Supreme Court has the power to do so.

  • Ian C.

    Cotour,

    Your reply let me to look up who decides what a valid church or religion is. Seems that receiving the IRS’ okay is somewhat key. I found several guides (how to start your own church). Oh the possibilities. This one is nice:

    https://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Religion

    Again, it’s the IRS (see “Earning Legal Status”) that decides the status. So unless the IRS says that you’re a church (and thus automatically tax exempt), you’re a for-profit business (I guess). And businesses can be shut down permanently, no? With what arguments could the IRS deny or revoke non-profit status then?

    (I know that this is now somewhat off-topic, but I find it interesting.)

  • Cotour

    There is something that lies beneath the IRS and its “Status” abilities.

    It is called the First Amendment.

    The “status” of a religious organization is only related to its non profit status (Tax deductable donations), which the IRS provides. The IRS does not structure what a religion is in the context of this discussion.

    Mayor DeBalsio is not to be paid attention to, his political career is over IMO.

  • Ian C asked, ” Not a religion would be terminated but a specific religious organization (or chapter of it). What could they do? Disband the organization, seize its assets, fine the legally responsible leaders?”

    All totally illegal under the 1st amendment. You cannot “disband or seize” any religious organization for such reasons. Period. It is offensive and beyond disgusting for any political leader to suggest so. Past generations of Americans would have been calling for De Blasio’s head for suggesting it. Now the general public is mostly sheep and willing to obey. Bad times indeed are coming, as such bad power-hungry people like De Blasio will take advantage of this timidity to grab more power, and to abuse it gleefully.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Ian. I would recommend researching the phrase ” prohibit the free practice of religion”. Shuttering a church, temple, synagogue or any other such place, and selling or auctioning off the site would be a violation.

    De Blasio is over his head when he says permanent.

    To your overall point, it was not just gatherings of the faithful that caused the spread. China is pretty atheist and we will never know the real numbers of dead there.

    In fact, I don’t think such gatherings were leading causes. Feel free to present evidence of this. Part of it, sure. But not as big as you make it sound.

  • sippin_bourbon

    More and more municipalities are cutting back on law enforcement. Or releasing people. It’s happened here and we are still low double digits in my region.

    Thank God we have a second amendment. I really hope thing do not get that far, tho.

    That being said. If you did not prepare in that area, it may be too late. Ammo is hard to find, and the less expensive firearms have been bought out.

  • Ian C.

    Cotour, Bob,

    Just to be clear, I don’t want to limit anyone’s right to assemble (for religious reasons or otherwise). I’m entertaining hypothetical arguments. It’s known in epidemiology that the proposed measures necessarily violate basic civil liberties and there’s always a discussion how to be effective while preventing harmful policies and abuse.
    As a (moderate) libertarian I’ve occasionally thought about how freedom-conserving policies could look like but didn’t arrive at a satisfying solution, considering how people are and the existing society they’d have to be implemented in. Suggestions?

    sippin_bourbon,

    It doesn’t have to be a religious gathering. Series of sport events or political rallies work as well.

    In China it happened in the Baibuting neighborhood of Wuhan on January 18. The true numbers of infections that followed the event remain AFAIK in the dark due to lack of available testing at that time and perhaps because it’s kept in the dark on purpose. Five days later the city was locked down; I don’t have proof of a direct relation between event and lock down, but after such an event it’s very plausible to do that from an epidemiological position.

    “A neighbourhood in Wuhan, the central Chinese city where a new coronavirus first broke out, reported at least 10 cases of infection after the local government allowed 40,000 families to gather and share their home-cooked food in a Chinese New Year banquet last month, even as the bug crept across the city.

    Many residents of Hubei province’s Baibuting community, which covers an area of 4 sq km with a population of 130,000, came down with fever after the annual event on Jan 18, prompting the local authorities to label 57 of its residential buildings as “fever buildings”, Caixin Global reported.”

    https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-wuhan-neighbourhood-sees-infections-after-40000-families-gather-for

    The other major part is travel. In our case air travel. Spreads super fast and before the affected countries have any idea it’s everywhere and builds local clusters. That’s why China had a head start and could keep it mostly to a couple of cities/provinces, but in Western countries it could make its way unmitigated. Trump’s decision to cut off travel from China soon after and then from the EU/UK was the right reaction; ironically the same media who now accuse him of doing nothing blamed him of overreaction each time IIRC.

  • Ian C: I think you keep missing my point. I agree that in extreme circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to be able to shut down religious gatherings, temporarily, until the emergency has passed. And if people defy such edicts in these circumstances arrests and fines would also be acceptable.

    De Blasio threatened “permanent shuttering.” He is also calling for such draconian tyrannical actions in the present situation, which to my mind, looking repeatedly at all the data, still does not justify any of these emergency edicts at all.

  • Ian C.

    Bob, I think I got your point, I was then just traveling down another avenue that also interested me.

    Unrelated, I experience difficulties reaching BtB since a couple of days. Sometimes for minutes, sometimes longer. Others have the same?

  • Cotour

    Ian C:

    As a dabbling Libertarian understand this, capital “R” Rights are not absolute.

    During something like extreme circumstance like a declared national emergency, individuals Rights can be disrupted or curtailed within reason, and in some cases not so reasonable.

    The Constitution structures the mechanisms and parameters within which we all live and enjoy our “freedom” as it is. But that freedom as it is is not absolute in all instances, especially those that may threaten the whole of society.

  • Ian C.

    Cotour,

    As a dabbling libertarian (small-l, though not dogmatically so) I’m aware of that. What interests me is to find different approaches to attain the same (epidemiological) effects. It’s to a huge part cultural and educational (the human nature part cannot be changed to easily — yet), so it’s more in the realm of the hypothetical, but sometimes one might find something really good that works right here and now.

  • Ian C: Your difficulty reaching the page might be because of the heavy traffic recently. My posts on the Wuhan panic have been picked up by a lot of sites.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Mr. Z.
    I too have had occasional difficulty accessing.

    Cotour, Ian.
    Correct, the Rights are not absolute.
    And it is also implied (but sadly forgotten sometimes) that all Rights come with Responsibilities.

  • sippin_bourbon: ‘Tis interesting that some people have had slow access. I have not seen any evidence of this at all, but then, I am presently on Pacific time and thus don’t start looking at the page in the morning until about 11 am Eastern. Was the slow period in the morning and in the East?

  • sippin_bourbon

    Mr Z it was over the weekend, late afternoon EST. Not slowness, but we unable to reach the page at all

  • Cotour

    Can what is going on right now in the world set off a hot war?

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-lab-wuhan-tucker-carlson-report/

    Apparently the strain of virus comes from a bat that is not native to the Wuhan area? Tucker goes their, but nothing can be proven. Are we already in a cold war of sorts? You know my answer to that question, we are always in / at some level or degree of confrontation with our adversaries.

  • Cotour

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Captain-of-aircraft-carrier-with-15167883.php

    Warfare comes in many forms, both hot and cold.

    I do not think that the Chinese leaderships generals are sitting around in Beijing as Trump cancels their world domination plans with their thumbs placed in some deep dark body orifice saying “Well genius, what we gonna do now?”

  • Rose

    Cotour, that Daily Caller article is wrong in calling it a “new report”. The preprint (which was subsequently removed from ResearchGate) is dated February 2020:
    https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/114720192-5eb8307f-017c-4075-a697-348628da0204.pdf
    It is a very short paper (< 1.5 page body), and is mostly supposition, but it is well worth reading.

    It will be interesting to see if Trump continues pushing against China and uses this possibility (probability?) as further ammunition, or quietly backs down in the name of peace. (I hate to say it, but I fear he is all hot air, and the more that evidence emerges of serious Chinese culpability, the less he will pursue it.) Imagine the consequences of the international community seeking reparations against China.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *