Archive for October 9, 2022

By John Ruberry

As you’ve learned in my recent posts at Da Tech Guy, Illinois’ SAFE-T Act will become effective on January 1, which will make the Prairie State the first in the union to abolish cash bail. Under very narrow circumstances, accused criminals can still be jailed, but these are among the crimes that will be non-detainable, which means, after perhaps 24 or 48 hours, they’ll walk free until their trials.

  • Aggravated Battery
  • Aggravated DUI
  • Aggravated Fleeing
  • Arson
  • Burglary
  • Intimidation
  • Kidnapping
  • Robbery
  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Threatening a Public Official
  • Drug-Induced Homicide

    Fact checkers, an ever increasingly dishonest lot, have been running to the defense of the law, which is being championed by the far-left of the Democratic Party. Illinois’ governor, J.B. Pritzker, a likely candidate for president if Joe Biden doesn’t run for reelection, probably plans to use the SAFE-T Act, which passed the state Senate at 5:00am on the last day of the 2021 veto session, to enshrine his woke credentials for 2024. 

    Illinois’ rising crime rate is a hot-button issue this election season, as it should be. The opinion of prosecutors of the SAFE-T Act is hostile. As I’ve mentioned in prior posts, 100 of Illinois’ 102 county prosecutors–they’re called state’s attorneys here–oppose the law. Tellingly, Kim Foxx, a George Soros-funded politician who is the so-called prosecutor in Cook County, where I live, is one of the two who support it. 

    Claiming the SAFE-T Act is in violation of the Illinois constitution, at least 24 state’s attorneys have filed suit to prevent it from going into force.

    As of October 9, these prosecutors include: 

    And I may be way short on this count. East Peoria’s mayor, John Kahl, claims 50 state’s attorneys have filed suit again the SAFE-T Act. But I’ll stick with my number for now–I derived my figure after an exhaustive Google News search. Some of the plaintiffs are Democrat and some are Republicans. Many county sheriffs have joined in on these lawsuits, most of which list Pritzker, Illinois’ attorney general, Kwame Raoul, and the state House speaker and state Senate president as defendants.

    Pritzker, along with some Democratic members of the Illinois General Assembly, are promising that changes will be made to the SAFE-T Act after Election Day, but no details are being offered. Which means that Illinois voters shouldn’t take their promises seriously. During Thursday’s televised debate with his Republican opponent, Darren Bailey, Pritzker didn’t mention any specific changes that he favors to the law. Bailey favors full repeal of the SAFE-T Act.

    Pritzker, as I’ve written for my own blog, has resorted to the ad misericordiam fallacy, an appeal to sympathy as the props up the controversial law. He keeps clinging to an apocryphal story about “addressing the problem of a single mother who shoplifted diapers for her baby, who is put in jail and kept there for six months because she doesn’t have a couple of hundred dollars to pay for bail.” Breitbart, in an honest fact-check, shot holes into Pritzker’s “Diapers Mom” argument.

    If the SAFE-T Act is so wonderful, then why does Pritzker have to lie when he defends it?

    John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

      One of the reasons why the left is so worried about Elon Musk taking over twitter is that censorship of the customer only works if everyone is going along. If there is no well traveled public platform where the word can break out then you can’t control the message (which is why the left took Trump rallies off of TV).

      It’s even worse for a business. If you’re business model involves trust, ie the public trusting you with your money, the people need to know that:

      1. Their money will be available when they want it
      2. You won’t steal it

      Apparently Paypal’s new “I’m going to take your money if you say or post something we don’t like” policy tends to violate that basic rule.

      The report sparked outrage online, with many people tweeting pledges to dump the online payment facilitator. Particularly chilling was the fact that the policy said determinations of what could be deemed “misinformation,” or a threat to the “wellbeing” of other users was to be at the “sole discretion” of PayPal. The now-aborted policy said users could be liable for “damages” — including the removal of $2,500 “debited directly from your PayPal account” per offense.

      And once you get a few high profile people with 3.1 million follower like this:

      Or someone like this:

      the real comedy is that Twitter attempted to hide this tweet so I could not access via Elon Musk reply

      Or to put it another way, even with Paypal claiming this was an “error” and insisting this is not a pending policy if that was YOUR money would you trust it in these people’s hands?

      Marcus has 100k followers Musk has 108+ million if only a tiny portion of those people say 1 / 100 of 1% decide they do not trust paypal what do you think happens?

      Can you say “Bank Run”?

      I suspect Paypal is going though the online equivalent of a bank run and I also suspect it’s not going to stop over a retraction, particularly if there are alternatives to paypal out there that people can use, from Donorbox to Glorifi that do not take your money if they don’t like what you say or think.

      Well the bottom line isn’t pretty because Paypal is about to discover the 2nd lesson of dictating how customers should think or else.

      It’s much harder to regain lost trust then it was initially to build it.

      Closing thought are paypal deposits FDIC insured?