Gov. Hochul’s Quarantine Camp Regulation

Rule 2.13 was first “adopted” by the New York State Health Department on March 9, 2020. It gave the NY State Health Commissioner complete and total power to remove, isolate and quarantine a person if the State “had evidence” or “suspected” a person of having a communicable disease (no evidence of illness or contagion needed). Whether or not there was a “declared emergency.”

This regulation kept renewing every 90 days and was due to expire on July 20, 2022. NY Governor Kathy Hochul sought to make it permanent. She was immediately challenged in a lawsuit by NY State Senator George Borello and two other Assemblymen.

People in Australia have been force-quarantined for weeks (without even testing positive for covid). That means taken away by police and forced to stay in a “camp” (or pay a $5,000 fine).

Just last month in China, “health officials” tried to lock customers in an Ikea store, because a 6 year old, covid-positive (and asymptomatic) boy had recently visited. There was a stampede to the doors and the “flash lockdown” was unsuccessful. But thanks to contact tracing, everybody at the store was forced to quarantine at home for two days, and 80,000 were ordered to undergo PCR-testing.

A few more highlights from Rule 2.13:

  • Quarantine locations include homes, hospitals, temporary housing supplied by the state, hotels and other residences owned by private individuals.
  • “If the location of the isolation or quarantine orders is owned by a landlord, hotel, motel or other person or entity,” those owners lose the right to go onto their property unless they have permission from the State.
  • The duration of the quarantine is determined by the State, with no time limit.
  • A person under a quarantine order could “seek judicial review” after-the-fact, but in the meantime, was “subject to all civil and criminal penalties” if they resisted the order or failed to comply. In other words, the detainee would be denied due process of law (a Constitutional right enjoyed by all Americans including criminals).
  • State and local health authorities were expected to coordinate with local law enforcement to ensure the public’s compliance with the orders.

A lawyer named Bobbie Ann Cox successfully overturned this regulation in a Judgement made on July 8, 2022.

Governor Hochul and NY Attorney General Tisch James are appealing the decision of Judge Ronald Ploetz of Cattaraugus County. They would like Rule 2.13 reinstated.

Judge Ploetz wrote in his decision, “The Commissioner (of the New York State Department of Health) has unfettered discretion to issue a quarantine or isolation for anyone, even if there is no evidence that person is infected or a carrier of the disease. Further, the Commissioner sets the terms, duration, and location of the detention, not an independent magistrate as required by PHL 2120.” (PHL 2120 is an existing law that allows for a process of isolation and quarantine, and does not circumvent Constitutional due process.)

Michael Kane of Teachers for Choice and other Medical Freedom advocates held a Rally and “Educational Protest” last month in Harlem to inform New Yorkers of this unlawful regulation, and that their Governor would like to reinstate it.

Nobody they spoke on the street knew about it, and almost everyone was shocked and even scared once they did know.

Follow the teachersforchoice.org blog to keep up to date on lawsuits challenging NYC’s illegal (and illogical and unscientific) vaccine mandates, and their efforts to educate the public about the ongoing threats to our freedoms.

A Handbook for Liberals

(A Summary of the 2020 book, Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay)

From the Introduction:

“The main tenets of liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion.” (p. 11)

After defining liberalism, the authors go on to describe “far-left progressive social crusaders” as those who seek to advance their cause of social and moral progress through “revolutionary aims that openly reject liberalism as a form of oppression…seeking to establish a thoroughly dogmatic fundamentalist ideology regarding how society ought to be ordered.”

These are the “Social Justice Warriors”, those who consider themselves to be woke: awake to nature of societal injustice.

The authors contend that liberalism and “modernity at the heart of Western civilization are at great risk on the level of the ideas that sustain them,” due to the rise of the far left, progressive, Social Justice Movement.

So why is this happening? That question is best answered by realizing that this Movement is based on two principles that underpin its entire ideology (known as Theory, or Critical Theory):

1. A belief that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies, which decide what can be known, and how.

2. Radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is obtainable.

Objective knowledge or truth is unobtainable, because of Theorists’ commitment to cultural constructivism.

Cultural constructivism is a belief that whatever it is we call truth, is nothing more than a construct of the culture calling it that, with one important proviso: Identity and oppression based on identity are treated as known features of objective reality. (p. 59)

To re-cap: the only things that are objectively real are your outward identity, the identity group(s) you belong to, and whatever rung(s) your identity group occupies on society’s ladder(s) of oppression.

To a Social Justice Warrior, everything is a “zero-sum political struggle revolving around identity markers like race, sex, gender, sexuality and many others.” (p.16) These markers have continued to splinter into ever more specific identity groups that tend to overlap (also known as intersectionality).

If the power differential or oppression cannot be detected in whatever is being considered, the evidence of oppression WILL be found by critically searching for it. Hence the name, Critical Theory. For example, when Social Justice activists speak of “racism”,

“They are not referring to prejudice on the grounds of race, but rather to, as they define it, a racialized system that permeates all interactions in society yet is largely invisible except to those who experience it or who have been trained in the proper “critical” methods that train them to see it.” (p. 15)

Critical Theory has its origins in 1960s Postmodernist thought as described by French social Theorists Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Francois Lyotard.

What is Postmodernism? Encyclopedia Britannica defines Postmodernism as “a late 20th century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.”

Academics built Critical Theory out of Postmodernist concepts, and by the 1980s there was a substantial body of written work on Critical Theory.

Critical Theory has been endlessly analyzed and expanded upon within the confines of academia for decades. There are now many branches on the Critical Theory tree available for study, such as Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory and Gender Studies (which has replaced Women’s Studies at some colleges).

The freedom to disagree and argue that reality is not 100% based on ever widening circles of power struggles cannot exist in the Social Justice Movement. This is because its entire ideology rests on this belief. Doubt or disagreement is not allowed and often met with hostility. The authors write,

“This is confusing and counterintuitive to a culture accustomed to placing human dignity first and thus valuing charitable interpretations and tolerance of a wide range of views. At best, this has a chilling effect on the culture of free expression, which has served liberal democracies well for more than two centuries, as good people self-censor to avoid saying the “wrong” things. At worst, it is a malicious form of bullying and–when institutionalized–a kind of authoritarianism in our midst.”

Critical Theory inverts Martin Luther King’s axiom, “Judge others not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Left-wing progressive Social Justice Warriors do the opposite of what Dr. King preached. This is why the old 1960s civil rights-era, liberal goal of remaining “colorblind” when assessing a person’s character, or ability to do a job, upsets Critical Theorists. Your outward identity markers (such as the color of your skin) are the MOST (and arguably the only) important and real things about you, and you MUST be judged by them.

Critical Theory has spread way, way out from where it originated at the colleges and universities. Having entered society at large, its illiberal ethos informs public education, law and government policy. An ideology which questions the existence of objective reality has entered the realms of medicine and scientific research.

In addition, people who consider themselves “liberal” may drift toward social justice causes without fully realizing that their fellow social justice warriors may not be reading from the same playbook.

Thus, a handbook is necessary to understand the far-left, progressive Social Justice Movement and the Critical Theories that underpin it.

Cynical Theories is that handbook.

Relevant viewing: Author Naomi Wolf speaks about her sense of dislocation as a liberal today in the video on the About page of this blog.

RI bill would financially penalize, double-tax the unvaccinated

U.S. Senator Samuel Bell (D-RI) recently introduced a bill that would fine unvaccinated Rhode Islanders $50 a month and double their personal income taxes.

This mandate extends to all residents age 16 and older, as well as non-residents who work in Rhode Island. Any requests for a medical exemption to the mandate must be signed and notarized by three doctors. However, the Department of Health has the power to reject any exemption it deems insufficient.

Although every single student and staff member at Columbia University is required to be vaccinated and boosted, they are once again mandated to wear masks in the classroom. The belief is that the masks are needed to protect these people from the coronavirus. Let me repeat: a fully vaccinated and boosted population (100% compliance) is still required to mask. This is the case at several U.S. universities.

Last year, the world saw the only nation to be 100% vaccinated experience a subsequent 20% rise in covid cases and cancel their Christmas celebrations. Covid in Gibraltar is still classed as “level three: high” by the CDC although many there are boosted as well.

If you can still catch the virus after getting injected (multiple times) then the vaccine doesn’t work. Vaccines make you immune to a virus and this one doesn’t. The Director of the CDC has clearly and definitively stated that the vaccines do not stop transmission of the virus.

The vaccines supposedly ensure that you won’t die from (with?) covid, but data and the persistent desire of some to keep everyone masked regardless of vaccination status, seems to indicate otherwise.

There is no logical or moral rationale for coercing or punishing anyone who does not take this vaccine which (like many medications) comes with the risk of serious side effects and cannot stop viral transmission. In fact, Pfizer has stated that covid cannot be eradicated and the (already highly survivable) virus will become endemic.

Instead of using scientific fact and logical reasoning to justify this divisive and very financially threatening bill, Senator Bell indulged in emotional web-spinning that provided no justification for it whatsoever. His infant son’s lung condition has made the Senator “more compassionate” and he is afraid his son won’t be able to interact with people. Senator Bell went on to say:

“Thousands of Rhode Islanders have died. I’ve had really painful calls from constituents who can’t go to the store because they’re immunocompromised, who have lost loved ones from the pandemic, who are really ill and not fully recovered.”

There are hundreds of viruses, bacteria and pathogens out there that could harm the immunocompromised. It’s too bad the vaccines will never rid the world of covid, and don’t have the full faith of the vaccinators who still want the vaccinated to mask. If they to want to keep masking the vaccinated, the vaccines must not be very effective. The vaccine makers have really let the immunocompromised down.

The American public deserves so much better than this Senator, who gave absolutely no scientific rationale to justify a financially punitive vaccine mandate. He thinks the vaccine commercials put out by the U.S. Government and funded by American taxpayers have made his argument for him, and he is hoping none of his constituents have wondered why the all the possible side effects aren’t named like they are in the other drug commercials.

Apparently this bill is unpopular with the public, in fact some Rhode Island residents called their representatives wondering if the bill was an internet hoax. Some Senators who originally supported it have since distanced themselves.

It is expected that this bill, which was introduced on March 1, 2022 without much press and was only recently brought to the public’s attention by a concerned Rhode Island citizen, will not pass. But these days, you cannot be sure of anything.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams: “If you don’t follow the rules, you won’t be able to be employed.”

Let’s recap the vaccine mandate situation in New York City. Nobody can work without showing proof of a covid-19 vaccination. You must be vaccinated to earn a living in the Big Apple. The mandate is in effect in all sectors, for all workers regardless of position. Even a teenage babysitter is expected to show proof of vaccination if asked. Unvaccinated city workers are put on unpaid leave or terminated, and unvaccinated private sector workers get fired. Capiche?

This, even though there have been MORE deaths classed as Covid in 2021 when vaccines were available, than in 2020 when there weren’t. It is fully acknowledged that the vaccines do not stop viral spread. And we can’t even be sure that the fabled claim that “the vaccine prevents hospitalization and death” is true. This data analysis of covid patients showed that hospitals declared those admitted with unknown vaccine status as “unvaccinated.” Once the vaccine records were matched and verified, the unvaccinated cases dropped by a third. And, the initial numbers of hospitalized vaccinated patients were shown to have been “grossly understated” by THOUSANDS.

The truth is, we are all still learning about what these vaccines do and do not do. There is no public safety or moral justification for coercing people to take them and there never has been. Full stop.

The “Key to NYC” program expired on March 7, which means the previously banned unvaccinated are once again allowed inside restaurants and other venues. But the mandates made it socially acceptable to discriminate, so some businesses keep up those nice, blue city-made “unvaccinated, do not enter!” signs in their windows.

NY Nets basketball star Kyrie Irving made waves last year for his refusal to vaccinate. When previous NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio put forth the private sector mandate last December, that meant Kyrie couldn’t play for the Nets. Eventually, they let him play again, but only for road games. Why? Because Kyrie would be in violation of the mandate if he played home games, in Brooklyn’s Barclays Center. He was allowed to play with his team in other cities because those cities DIDN’T have mandates. The virus stopped being a problem when Kyrie left town.

The virus also stops being a problem when unvaccinated VISITING players come to town. An unvaccinated player on the opposing team can play at Barclays Center (because he’s not an employee of an NYC business).

When the “Key to NYC” expired, that meant the Barclays was no longer off limits for unvaccinated spectators. So, Kyrie Irving attended a home game a few weeks ago, as a spectator.

To recap: Kyrie Irving, unvaccinated, could not play basketball at Barclays because of a vaccine mandate. But unvaccinated visiting players COULD play inside Barclays. And Kyrie could play with his team, but ONLY if the Nets were out of town. And then, Kyrie Irving COULD enter Barclays as a spectator, but NOT as a player. The virus is or is not a problem, according to rules about certain people entering certain buildings. Got it?

So, it’s pretty stupid that Kyrie Irving can be inside Barclays as a spectator but not as a player, right? When pressed about the hypocrisy and downright absurdity of the vaccine mandates, Mayor Eric Adams lamented that he couldn’t bend the rules for Kyrie because “it would send the wrong message just to have an exception for one player when we’re telling countless numbers of New York City employees, “If you don’t follow the rules, you won’t be able to be employed.”

Got that? Being vaccinated isn’t about health. It’s about following rules.

But, it turns out that being an elite athlete who makes millions of dollars has its perks. Now, the rules WILL be bent for him and other unvaccinated NYC athletes (and performers). They can play at-home games now. But for all other workers, the vaccine mandates are still in effect, indefinitely.

Hear ye, hear ye! King Mayor Adams decrees that he “really wants that ring” so he will allow Kyrie Irving the privilege of playing his game! I say, unjabbed athletes may play now at the pleasure of the King, who is a big NY Nets fan! Be it known however, that the peasants must continue to abide by the King’s mandate! This exception is for multimillionaire athletes and entertainers only! Hear ye!

NYC has allowed a horrible (and dangerous) precedent to be set. Now, one person with power can stop millions of people from exercising their basic right to work for a living if they don’t follow his absurd, illogical, unscientific and inhumane rule. Your ability to work in NYC is now contingent on following an arbitrary rule (not a law), not voted on by anyone, put in place by someone who happens to be a mayor, who can have it apply whenever and to whomever he wants.

Kyrie Irving was very happy about playing home games again, but he did say this: “Any special privilege or exemption, I think there are a lot of people dealing with real consequences from being unvaccinated. I don’t think it’s talked about enough in terms of our essential workers and people on the front lines. It’s a whole community of us that really want to stand together.”

Consequences like job termination with no unemployment benefits and social ostracization, Kyrie? Can you be more specific, please, even though the truth sounds harsh? It would be so righteous if Kyrie really did stand with his fellow unvaccinated New Yorkers, and refused to play until the mandates were lifted for everyone and people got their jobs back. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

Cloth Mask: Symbol of Societal Harm

For two years, the experts’ dictums around masks have been contradictory, confusing and incorrect. Especially cloth masks.

First, we must begin with the fact that at the beginning of the pandemic, US surgeon general Jerome Adams specifically said not to wear masks. Any kind of mask. Even an N95 mask, which he said needs to be fitted properly and should only be used in a medical setting. Anthony Fauci also said mask-wearing by the general public was not necessary on 60 Minutes.

Then, the messaging changed and we were told to do the opposite. Cloth masks were celebrated and encouraged. Masks were deemed an essential tool to combat Covid. Masks became emblematic of the pandemic, always there to remind us (along with the news) that it was happening. This tool–a mask–was so important in the fight against Covid, that people were arrested for not using it.

The CDC gave some guidance on fabric type and fit on its website, meanwhile studies supporting cloth masks were flimsy at best. Perhaps knowing this, the CDC eventually recommended wearing two masks to improve the efficacy and fit of cloth masks about a YEAR AND A HALF into the pandemic.

Think about that. It took the best minds in science well over a year to figure out that cloth masks are so ineffective you should wear TWO of them.

But why didn’t they KNOW that already? There were several studies, dated PRIOR to the pandemic, asserting that cloth masks aren’t effective and shouldn’t be used. Heck, a 2015 study in the NIH’s National Library of Medicine stated 97% of respiratory viral particles penetrated the cloth masks and weren’t recommended for health care workers!

But the massive mixed messaging around cloth masks REALLY took off when epidemiologist and advisor to the Biden Administration, Michael Osterholm, went on CCN in August 2021 and dropped this bombshell:

In the video Osterholm says: “Many of the cloth face coverings people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out; either your breathing out or your breathing in. And in fact, if you’re in the Upper Midwest right now, those who are wearing their face cloth covering can tell you, they can smell all the smoke that we’re still getting. We need to talk about better masking.”

Excuse me? Sixteen months into the pandemic and this leader in Science who advises the president on all things Covid is JUST NOW discovering (even with the benefit of relevant studies available to him in government-owned libraries) that cloth masks are “not very effective”?

So, people wore cloth masks for over a year in good faith, believing they were effective protection against a deadly virus, and this guy comes along and blows that out of the water. But, no biggie! Nobody’s ticked off with the government and media approved experts about this fairly large error regarding a critical life-saving tool.

Even after her colleague on CNN said so, it took Dr. Leana Wen another few months to clearly state that cloth masks do nothing. Her actual words during a CNN interview in late December 2021 were, “Cloth masks are little more than facial decoration. There’s no place for them in light of Omicron. So wear a quality mask, at least a 3-ply surgical mask.”

Faced with this media hitjob on cloth masks, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky finally conceded on January 14, 2022 that that cloth masks aren’t that effective but “the best mask you can wear is the one you will wear.” Almost two years into this pandemic and now the recommendation is that it doesn’t matter what you wear, as long as you have something on your face.

You don’t saw a log with a butter knife. The type and quality of a tool needed for a job MATTERS. Especially when it comes to a tool so important in “the fight against Covid” that you can get arrested, or be publicly accused of killing people, for not using it. But the truth is, there STILL is not a consensus about mask usage–type, fit, fabric or even if they are necessary in the first place–and there never has been.

For every parent who insists all children be masked in school to protect others because there is no real risk to the child, there is another who cites an article stating that masking is detrimental to children. Meanwhile, many of the masks worn by children are…..cloth. Cloth masks that, according to one media-anointed expert, are mere “facial decoration.” Do we need to wonder why some people are losing patience with masks and would like them to be optional? And also why others are digging in their heels and want those masks to stay on?

At first, our trusted government and media experts said that they didn’t want people to wear masks. Then they said they DID want people to wear them, absent of any major study to justify the switch. Pro-mask studies and news articles flooded the internet AFTER they made the recommendation. This distinction is important. Why? Because the government suddenly told us to do something that they specifically told us NOT to do, BEFORE there was any “science” to justify their total 360.

The president says he wants to send N95 masks to Americans. But the CDC still presents cloth masks as a viable option and the prior US Surgeon General said N95s aren’t appropriate for the public either.

Are you seeing an insane-making pattern of contradictions here, or is it just me?

Contradictions like this are a wonderful way to sow fear, confusion and anger amongst the public. How about we all come off this battlefield and take a look at who is really causing societal harm in this country?