From Canada, With Love

48
3274
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One thing inevitably follows the next – if the first thing is tolerated.

When the Supreme Court, America’s unelected legislative body, created an exception (several, actually) to the Fourth Amendment’s clear and definite prohibition of searches without having first established probable cause and without a specific warrant, the Fourth Amendment became a functional nullity – the equivalent of a plastic water jug shot through with holes.

One of those exceptions created out of thin air by the Supremes is the one which empowers armed government workers to randomly stop motorists who’ve given no reason to suspect them of having broken any laws – in order to force them to prove they haven’t broken any.

And (hopefully, from the viewpoint of the government) to find some they have.

This exception to what had been the Fourth – and Fifth – Amendment’s protections created Checkpoint America.

Which didn’t used to exist.

Millennials won’t remember that better, vanished time, but anyone older than 40 today can remember it.

Americans were once free to travel unmolested by the state’s armed goons unless the state’s armed goons could give a reason for molesting them, specifically.

Not arbitrarily and randomly.

Which is to say, unreasonably.

Public saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety is given as the justification for the trampling of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments’ clear prohibitions of this checkpoint business.

“Someone” among the herd of randomly stopped cars might be “drunk” – or some other illegal thing, it is argued. One could of course just as easily turn this around and argue that any of the armed government workers performing the random stop/search might have just raped a child.

Or perhaps his pockets are stuffed with money stolen from  . . . “someone.”

Perhaps they all should be compelled to disprove the allegation upon demand – for the sake of public saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety?

Never mind. Logic being as defunct as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In place of the guarantees the people were once promised, written in the plainest, clearest language imaginable – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized – it is now “lawful” to randomly stop people, without warrant or probable cause, subject them to searches (eyeballing the interior of your car is a search) and require them to prove their innocence of such crimes as having consumed legal alcohol in whatever arbitrarily forbidden quantity or of having partaken of arbitrarily illegal “drugs” in any quantity.

Re-read that part about “shall not be violated.” No exceptions are listed – except those based on “probable cause” and very particularly describing what is to be searched for and seized – as opposed to a random fishing expedition, as we’ve all grown accustomed to tolerating.

That outrage ordained and accepted, the next and worse will inevitably follow.

It already has, in Canada – where the badged and armed ones have been empowered to demand that people prove to their satisfaction they aren’t  “drunk” or “high” even if they aren’t driving.

Even if they are at home.

Canadian cops can now bang on people’s doors and demand they submit to a breath test “within two hours” of driving – and if alcohol is found in their system at that time, it’s an arrestable offense.

Even if the drinking occurred after the driving stopped.

You drive home, park the car, grab a beer or three and sit down on the sofa to relax after a long day. Unbeknownst to you, “someone” called to report you swerved or cut them off on your way home – but perhaps all you did was pass them or “speed.” This enrages some people – who can now do more than flash their brights and honk their horns in impotent fury.

An AGW is dispatched to your house, there is a knock on the door. . .

Canadians are  subject, in other words, to being SWATTED on the basis of an allegation of a violation of DUI laws . . . hours after they stopped actually driving.

Your neighbor – the one you argued about over grass clippings or maybe a barking dog – only has to pick up the phone.

One call does it all.

Hut! Hut! Hut!

Canadians actually driving are also subject to mandatory breath tests at any time, without any need for “reasonable suspicion” that they may have been drinking.

The entire country has become, in effect, a gigantic checkpoint, open 24/7.

And refusing to collaborate in one’s own prosecution by submitting to a breath test – whether at home or in one’s car – is now itself a criminal offense.

The “noncompliant” victim is subject to immediate manacling and, upon conviction, can be sent to prison as well as fined thousands of dollars on that basis alone. Even if no trace of alcohol is subsequently discovered in the victim’s system. At least one elderly woman with breathing difficulties was cuffed and stuffed – and punished – for not taking the test, in spite of subsequent testing that established she had zero alcohol in her system.

And it’s not just breath they’re testing, either.

The law (C46) empowers armed government workers to “demand” – the exact word used in the legislation – that drivers “.. provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment ”

In other words, the AGW banging on your door in the middle of the night may have a syringe.

Imagine being jumped, cuffed and held down while armed government workers (indemnified against any civil liability) extract blood from you  . . . in your own living room.

Yes, it’s come to that.

And it will be coming here, too.

Bank on it.

If forcibly stopping motorists at random checkpoints and demanding they prove to the satisfaction of a roadside AGW that they are not “drunk” (as well as other things) isn’t a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, then on what basis would one argue that stopping them anywhere and demanding exactly the same thing is a violation?

It will of course be argued that the Canadians haven’t got a Bill of Rights – but then, neither do we.

Not anymore.

The ugly fact is that forced blood draws are already being performed here – with judicial sanction. 

And it is already effectively a criminal offense to decline to self-incriminate by the side of the road.

Refusal to take a breath test on demand in this country will result in arrest, suspension of driving privileges (how did it become a state-granted privilege to drive?) as well as the seizure of one’s vehicle.

All without the necessity of having convicted you of anything.

Americans have become used to the idea of sentence first, verdict after – per the Red Queen, from Alice in Wonderland. And it is going to get much worse. Ironically, because of the decriminalization of marijuana – ostensibly a step toward less Hut! Hut! Hutting! that will lead to more  – and worse – of it. Because THC – the active intoxicant in pot – cannot be detected by Breath tests and can remain in one’s blood for days and weeks (and longer) after the intoxicating effect has dissipated.

Thus it will be argued that it is necessary for public saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety to randomly check blood for the presence of THC – and anyone who has smoked pot at any time within the past days/weeks/months will be vulnerable to a Hut! Hut! Hutting! for as long as traces remain in his system.

It is equally likely they will soon begin mandatory DNA swabbing as well. Why not? How could anyone object – given established law and precedent?

“Someone” might be an on-the-loose felon, for instance.

Can’t be too saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafe!

We are without doubt through the looking glass.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

Share Button

48 COMMENTS

  1. I just blew into my personal breathalyzer and got a reading of .08% which counts as DUI where I live. I haven’t drank any alcohol or eaten any food for over a week. I use the silly thing to measure if I am ketogenic or not and after fasting for a week I am very ketogenic. One of the byproducts of burning fat for fuel is acetate which most portable, possibly other, breathalyzers read.

    Other things set off the portables so I will never submit to a breath test if I must roadside is fine but anything short of a blood test is playing with fire.

    Kind of fun to prove your not drinking though by drinking a beer and having the number go to zero in about 10 minutes though.

  2. In the final analysis the only logical and reasonable conclusion to reach is that people truly deserve the government that they are willing to tolerate. I’ve reached the point where I believe Americans “deserve” a whole lot more than what they are “enjoying” now. I don’t believe that these sheep-in-human-bodies would know what to do with real freedom even if they had it gift wrapped and handed to them. The most likely reaction would be that having to live as responsible adults would be an intolerable experience from which they would scream for relief.

    If only there were some inhabitable planet to which the rest of us could exile ourselves…

    • Hi Lib

      I it weren’t for my cats – and Trans-Am and old bikes – I’d be much more inclined to seriously consider fleeing; perhaps to the same small town where Fred Reed lives. Inertia’s a hard master….

      • My wife and I are planning on returning to her South American home country in the next few years (I’m ready to head down there yesterday, but she quite prudently advises that we wait and prepare financially and logistically for a year or two first).

        It’s a tragic sign of how far this country has fallen when it holds less allure and has less future potential than a foreign country that is just now recovering from decades of rampant corruption, political oppression, and civil strife and that, despite its amazingly rapid recovery, still pretty much fits in the category of “Third World Shit Hole.”

        • Libberanter,

          I’m of the same mind as you! My GF has citizenship up here, but went back to her country a few years ago to look after her elderly father. I need to make some preparations myself, then I’m out of here.

          Because traffic is nuts down there (making NYC look good), I’ll have to give up driving and riding a motorcycle. I might get a small motorcycle at some point, but I don’t know. Even driving a car, you take your life in your hands down there. That said, I like the greater personal FREEDOM down there vs. what we have here.

          For example, the vast majority of medicines can be purchased over the counter; if you’ve spent time down there, I’m sure you know that. But it’s so LIBERATING to simply buy what I need in the pharmacies (o boticas) down there! I just walk in, tell ’em what I need, they tell me what it’ll cost, then I walk out with my medicine(s)-no muss, no fuss, no BS like here.

          The cops never hassled me down there, either. I get the impression that, unless you do something SERIOUS (like rape, robbery, or muder), they cops will leave you alone. They won’t jam you up over petty stuff like the Nazi wannabes here do.

          Oh, and what’s even worse (about this culture anyway) is that I have more friends down THERE than I do here. I’m serious! Everyone in her neighborhood asks about me.

          Customs down there treats me with more dignity and respect too. Depending on the day, they may be in a sour mood (by the time I get there, third shift is on duty), but they don’t have the ‘hut, hut, hut’ attitude our customs people have. You know, I have a harder time RETURNING to the US than I do getting in to her country! That’s messed up…

          I could go on, but you get my point…

          • I’ve not had the pleasure of traveling to South America yet but from everything I’ve read, the recurring theme is how much more freedom one has down there. I try to explain this to the fellas at work and they’re just deathly scared of places like Colombia. The brainwashing/propaganda runs deep.

    • “The most likely reaction would be that having to live as responsible adults would be an intolerable experience from which they would scream for relief.”

      Scream, they would! In fact, this country (and the world) is so back-asswards that I suspect the “sheep” will actually demand their own imprisonment so they don’t have to look away from a small screen for more than two seconds!

  3. i’ll say it…canada, you’re pussies! we may be chumps but at least we put up a fight OCCASIONALLY! our supreme court gets it right MOST of the time. the only thing that we’ve seen from canada that might count as a spined mammal is jordan petersen. the AGW comes to your door…DON’T OPEN IT. make the assholes break it down.

    • Hi Mike,

      “our supreme court gets it right MOST of the time.”

      Whether intentional or not, the practical function of the Supreme Court is to legitimize the expansion of State power. From this perspective, they get it right most of the time. If, however, one naively believes that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to strictly limit State power, then they get it wrong most of the time. Most of what the federal government does is obviously unconstitutional, at least to those not trained in obfuscation (lawyers, judges and politicians). The court has been a willing accomplice in an expansive interpretation of State power since the very beginning.

      Jeremy

      • so in my opinion (the only opinion i issue) the supremes stepped in it in kelo, citizens united, and the granting of obamacare as NOT a tax. those are the ones i clearly remember. share with us some other shitpies. the stopping of cars for warrantless searches is also a biggie…but generally i say they get it right more than wrong…and i’m the one that wants the federal US out of north america

        • The Supreme Court went off the rails early on. If you examine the Constitution, which created the courts, nowhere will you find the authority for the judiciary to change the meaning of the document’s provisions or in general to legislate from the bench. John Marshall (who today we would call an activist judge) basically pulled the power to do so out of his ass in Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 case, and established the ability of the Supreme Court to make the Constitution, or any law, mean what the judges wanted it to mean.

          For the most part this power has been used to permit federal power to metastasize into every aspect of life. One of the most pernicious examples of this is Wickard v. Filburn, a 1942 case in which the black-robed perverts of the Supreme Court basically decided that even if you are not engaged in interstate commerce, if your activity might even affect interstate commerce in some manner you come under the jurisdiction of federal power. (The case concerned a farmer growing wheat for use as animal feed on his own farm in violation of federal regulations regarding wheat production. It vastly increased federal power over the states and individual citizens.)

          There is a lot of other bad case law but these two decisions can probably be considered the bedrock of the modern American socialist police state.

          • Amen, Jason.

            There is (per Shakespeare) a special room reserved in Hell for lawyers – a species that exists to make law mean anything (or nothing) via the Talmudic parsing of purposefully vague language.

            Hamilton being the ur shyster of America. It was he who inserted the necessary “enabling language” into the Constitution. The “general welfare” clause, for instance. And “Necessary and Proper.”

            Innocuous to a non-lawyer, but the keys to everything that followed.

            • Hamilton was a real snake in the grass. It’s just too bad that he didn’t get into his little tussle with Aaron Burr 15 years or so earlier.

              The state delegates at the Constitutional Convention (that is, the counter-revolution by the Federalists) were quite concerned about the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses as it seemed to them it opened the door to unrestricted Federal power. Madison went around assuring them that these were restrictive clauses, not expansive; and that they were irrevocably tied to the limited governmental functions enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. (Hamilton was silent on this issue.)

              It’s not clear to me whether Madison was in on the subterfuge or whether he really believed what he was peddling. Certainly the states would never have signed on had they realized that they were ceding absolute power to centralized authority.

                • Hi Jarhead,

                  I’ll go you one more – and state what Spooner did 150 years ago: The Constitution’s merits or lack thereof are irrelevant. The question is whether it is a legitimate contract binding on anyone living today. We hear much about the “consent of the governed.” Did you consent to be governed? I can’t recall consenting, myself. I certainly never gave my assent – freely, without duress – to the Constitution. I doubt there is a single living person who has.

                  How can one be bound – morally or legally – to the terms and conditions of a contract one never agreed to? A “contract” such as the Constitution would never hold up in court were we discussing any other matter relating to contract law. You cannot assert that “Joe” owes you money because you have a piece of paper that says you have “the power” to filch his pockets. You must produce evidence that “Joe” agreed to buy something from you (a service or some tangible good) and that you provided it, per the terms of the mutually agreed to contract. Otherwise, the court would laugh in your face – or have you locked up… in a mental hospital.

                  Yet – somehow – we are supposed to accept the idea that a handful of men who have been dead for hundreds of years had the power to bind us to a contract we never signed.

                  It’s bizarre.

                  • The “States” were the “Constitutors”, and that contract was binding on the States, the Citizens being Citizens of the State they abode in. There was no such thing as a “UNITES STATES” or a “Citizen thereof” until House Joint Resolution 192 and the Bankruptcy Foreclosure of 05 JUN 1933 signed by a Traitorous (((FDR))). But, that’s another story. Read the above link for further explanation. .. and Good Job, Eric!!!

                  • The “States” were the “Constitutors”, and that contract was binding on the States, the Citizens being Citizens of the State they abode in. There was no such thing as a “UNITES STATES” or a “Citizen thereof” until House Joint Resolution 192 and the Bankruptcy Foreclosure of 05 JUN 1933 signed by a Traitorous (((FDR))). But, that’s another story. Read the above link for further explanation. .. and Good Job, Eric!!!

                  • eric, I agree it is bizarre but those who say the Constitution is not binding when it comes to the bill of rights aren’t capable of reading comprehension.

                    The Constitution’s Bill of Rights simply describes the natural born rights of people that govt. can’t change.

                    Too many complain that the Constitution gives us these rights when in essence, it says govt. can’t take away those god given rights.

                    • The “Bill of Rights” was the key reason the Anti-Federalists would not sign the newly formed Constitution, and rightly so. They did not trust a Central Government, even one chained by a Constitution limiting their power, to not “over reach” as they have clearly done. And yes, the Bill of Rights lists a short example, no all inclusive, of natural rights held by man simply by being born. They are not given by government and cannot be restricted nor taken away from government. This was the condition on the Bankruptcy Reorganization..

            • One of the most important cases in our history, that basically established the welfare state to be administered by the federal government, was Helvering v Davis in 1937. It concerned the constitutionality of Social Security. Just 2 years prior, the Supreme Court ruled that the almost identical Railroad Retirement Act was unconstitutional because, among other things, it “denies due process of law by taking the property of one and bestowing it upon another.” (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad Company) The RRA would have taken a percentage of wages from railroad employees, and a percentage from employers, and put it into a fund held by the US government, to be disburse to retirees. It was the Social Security Act limited to railroad workers. Yet, just 2 years later, the Supreme Court approved the Social Security Act. The Constitution had not been amended. Roosevelt had threatened to pack the court with leftist judges, and they basically tapped out. Regarding the radical new idea that the federal government could take money from one person to spend on another, the court simply said, “there have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision.” That those “great statesmen” were the ones who wrote the constitution was of no consequence to the court. Without amendment, they changed the entire nature of the federal government, creating the welfare state under which we now suffer today.

              • In 05 JUN 1933 FDR declared Bankruptcy Foreclosure with House Joint Resolution 192 and amended the 1917 Tading with the Enemy Act that exempted American Citizens to strike that exemption to now INCLUDE American Citizens. This reduced us to serfs and plebs as surety/collateral on the debt and everything we do as a right, work, marry, practice a Trade, own carry a firearm, speak or march publically, (to Include driving, operating a motor vehicle on public roads – US .vs Thompson) to a government privilege dependent on license and fee. Recided the “Gold Standard” too. We were robbed..

        • Hi Mike,

          Well, here’s a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Dozen_(book)
          This book details some particularly important decisions. There are many more, such as Gonzales v. Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich which, insanely, asserted that the private, non-commercial production of cannabis for medical use could be banned because such production could affect interstate commerce. Jason cites two more particularly egregious examples.

          However, I like to think about this in a broader context. If, “they usually get it right”, how did we get here? Anything that the Federal government does that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional. This is made clear by the tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. In short, if it doesn’t say they can do it, they can’t do it. So, all Federal labor laws, drug laws, minimum wage laws, environmental regulations, EPA and OSHA fatwas, etc… are all unconstitutional. Yet, the supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of all of this.

          As Jason correctly notes, the commerce clause, supposedly intended to prevent trade barriers between the states, can be (and has been) invoked in defense of almost any conceivable regulation. Another problem is what cases the court chooses not to hear. I don’t know of much scholarly study in this area, but it would be fascinating to know what the effect of judicial non-action has had on the growth of State power.

          As I said in my earlier post, either the Court is intended to legitimize the expansion of State power, or to limit that expansion. If its’ purpose is to limit that expansion, then Supreme Court justices are uniquely unqualified for the job. The court is made up entirely of government lawyers who have spent their entire careers defending the exercise of government power (the last justice who had any private defense experience was Thurgood Marshall). Each justice is nominated by a president who is unlikely to pick someone hostile to the exercise of executive power. Each justice is confirmed by senators unlikely to seat someone hostile to expansive legislative power. In short, everyone on the court is there because of a demonstrated bias in favor of State power (so called originalists included).

          To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, “But whether the Supreme Court really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

          Cheers,
          Jeremy

  4. I am reminded of a story relating to the mass killing of wild Buffalo in the US west of the past. It was said that the Buffalo were so dumb that if one was dropped beside another the other never stopped eating the grass until it too fell from a fatal shot. They were simply too unconcerned to even stampede.

    They are passing ‘laws’ today that should scare the bejesus out of any moral and thinking person. Even the right to life is now becoming a privilege.

    If we continue to act like the Buffalo they will keep treating us like Buffalo.

    Nice write Eric…

    • Thanks, Ken… and, I am terrified by what’s happening, the pace of it… and the generally indifference to it. I often feel like throwing open a window and screaming… but they’d just haul me away to rubber room.

      That said, per Orwell: Sanity is not statistical.

  5. Oklahoma Police can now drain your debit card on a routine stop under some weird new law. Stay out of that state. Arizona police can imprison you for any amount of alcohol in your system if they want. .03 sure. And theyre machines arent routinely calibrated so you could go to prison for drinking nothing or very little. If you cant afford 10K for a lawyer you have little recourse. One dui in Arizona can get you the breathalyzer thing in your car for a year. God forbid you get a second one. Its really becoming impossible to drive yourself. I used to love driving. When I was a kid it meant freedom. Today the potential liability is nuts.

  6. Eric, I refer to this concept in part as “losing the moral argument”. Once you agree to say…a 1% tax on property, income, etc….you have lost the ability to morally argue against any further taxation, all the way up to 100+%. Same goes for all of their tyrannical shenanigans, including these checkpoints.

    Very difficult to back out once you allow the camel to stick its nose in your tent.

    Gentlemen, withdraw consent when able, operate under duress when not, build the Pirate Ship and set sail. And as I sail away, standing on the aft deck with the wind at my back, I will ask you fellow pirates standing next to me if you can hear it? Listen real carefully….it is barely discernible, almost sounds like a gentle breeze or perhaps a distant rolling wave…yes, yes indeed, can you here it? It is the sound of no women.

    No comment from me would be complete without…F the Government.

  7. All Western countries have become socialist police states. The “free world” is a f–ing joke. Trudeau is now considering a national handgun ban, despite the fact that Canada already has universal handgun registration, universal discretionary licensing, no CCW, mandatory locked storage, and a ban on any handgun with a barrel less than 4 inches. If you use a handgun for self-defense in Canada YOU will be charged.

    The vast majority of the gun crime in Canada is perpetrated by “immigrants” with dusky complexions utilizing unlicensed firearms. But the “solution,” it seems, is to confiscate them from white taxpayers with jobs and mortgages who scrupulously follow the letter of the law.

    Exact same thing in New Jersey, New York, and California. The Second Amendment means shit.

  8. Seeing how state equipped terrorists can forcefully extract our blood, surely it is a necessity for free men to exercise their divine right to extract blood from the state equipped terrorists extracting their blood. Obviously our testing methods are rather medieval and require far more blood than a syringe. 8 – 12 pints are needed for our tests for steroids, illegal substances, demons and malevolence.

    Of course we need to know their home addresses of every state equipped terrorist and the addresses of all their immediate relatives to make certain outbreaks can be contained by testing their blood as well.

    The only method ever proven effective in stopping outrages is to visit outrage upon those perpetrating them in the first place.

  9. On an already long delayed flight out of Newark, there was a “medical emergency” just before take off. It turned out to be a young man who “did not know where he was” and refusing to leave to bathroom. So likely drugs, but maybe mental health issues.
    One very large cop entered to plane and spoke to the young man in a calm and reassuring voice with no hint of physically threatening posture. Cop walked him off the plane with no cuffs or physical contact. I was impressed with the cops professionalism. (Although given the size of this cop he could have put the young dude in his pocket.) I was impressed as well because I was expecting a SWAT team to come in guns drawn.

  10. the Police State is one of Trumps biggest blind spots. I suspect he has no clue on the matter, having likely been on the beneficent end of law enforcement his entire life.
    If he were informed would be take steps to restore some of our liberties? I don’t know but I would like to think so. Sadly I don’t think we will ever find out.
    The MILITARIZATION of the police is also a sort of FEDERALIZATION of the police. Our only hope then is to try to work closely what few good cops can be found at the local level.
    https://www.dailycaller.com/2018/11/17/washington-police-chief-gun-laws/

    • having likely been on the beneficent end of law enforcement his entire life.

      having private security around his entire life also applies. if i were gonna guess, and considering all the small communities in the US, his security team, before being elected, was larger that most police forces in the US. there are videos of him going to his 757 and the SUV he traveled in stopped at the bottom of the steps to the plane. no going through private terminals for him.

      the point of my reply is there are other blind spots trump has with the general public. hillary/bill have the same blind spots. what a kawinkydink.

  11. “All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” ~ Mao Tse Tung

    That’s it, in the end. Constitutions and courts mean fuck-all as long as the State has the bulk of the lethal firepower at its disposal.

    • two things come from the barrel of a gun, tyranny and liberty. — paul gilpin

      ok, i know someone else wiser than i said it, but i can’t find out who. it has sort of an H.L. Menken ring to it though.

  12. From my study thus far it seems that police wanted arbitrary checkpoint powers over motorists from not long after the very beginning of motoring. It wasn’t until the age of the safety mom’s and neoprohibitionists that their attempts stopped being met with sufficient resistance.

    On another note, it’s been many years since I watched Alfred Hitchcock Presents and I come across this episode on youtube. It’s about a Clover getting his comeuppance. Oddly enough involving alcohol.

    Alfred Hitchcock Presents – S05E11 – Road Hog
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzppnbrWzrI

    Today this probably couldn’t even be made let alone aired.

    • There has not been any TV shows since that can hold a candle to Alfred Hitchcock and The Twilight Zone.

      Both are on Hulu. I’m surprised Alfred Hitchcock’s stuff hasn’t been removed after Tippi Hedren’s sexual assault claim. Better watch it before the PC police take notice.

      • It’s amazing how long the shakedown has been with us and all these decades but it’s still something the majority treats those who consider it as such as conspiracy theorists. But it was already old when that aired. Time again for “Wreckless”
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN2dCYen5jU
        Of course that film was made to sell chevies and it turns out well, but the same old scam is depicted. Closing in on at least a century of it and no end in sight.

  13. Canada has already criminalized anyone who doesn’t believe the entire jewish “holocaust” story. Historians have been imprisoned for pointing out the inconsistencies, impossibilities and fabrications made by those with a vested interest in keeping the story as it is commonly stated. Add to that, anyone who is prosecuted for “improper thoughts” about the jewish “holocaust” IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENTER IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE (PROOF) INTO THE COURT RECORD. These “kangaroo courts” use a (flawed) concept called “judicial notice” which states: if the evidence presented by the defense counters or refutes the “commonly accepted beliefs” of the “holocaust”, the courts will not allow it to be entered into the court record and cannot be used to bolster the defense’s case. You see, when it comes to “holocaustianity”, TRUTH cannot be used as a defense against prosecution.
    Monika Schaefer, Ursula Haverbeck, and Sylvia Stolz are three women doing “hard time” in German maximum-security prisons for questioning “that which may not be questioned”. The jewish “holocaust” has been turned into a “religion” from which no questioning is permitted.

    • Yep. “If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize”. It’s funny, by throwing people in jail for questioning the holocaust, “they’re” basically admitting it didn’t go down the way were told it went down. The truth never needs protecting. It will stand up to all inquiries at all times.

    • Hi Anarchyst,

      I agree with you that it is very troubling whenever expressing an opinion about anything is criminalized. If the opinion is silly (e.g., flat Earth) or obnoxious and hateful (e.g., calling someone a “nigger”) then the answer is to point out how silly it is, or to shun the purveyor of obnoxious and hateful speech.

      But to make it an offense merely to speak or write about anything is an outrage – even more so when it is sanctioned because it made someone “uncomfortable.” Down that road lies the Gulag… and (ironically enough) the gas chamber.

      If people are free to speak and to write, the truth will out.

      The only people who wish to stifle speech are those who fear and loathe the truth.

    • Yes, criminalizing free speech. No Questioning nor criticizing, nor contradicting the “Chosen”.. Criminalizing speech in Europe and Canada in a Jewish Specialty. No sale here in the US. The first Amendment reigns supreme. Here, jou have no right, nor any expectation to, not be “offended”. Brilliant, the Anti-Federalist Founders!

  14. We do not have a Bill of Rights. We do have something similar in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Just as worthless as your BoR though.

    Why. The Supreme Court.

    And the Canadians will do F’ all about it, just like Americans.

    There will be a Supreme Court challenge to this eventually. And nothing will change because like rights free roadblocks, the SC will simply say is in the public interest and wipe their ass with the CoRaF, again converting ‘Right’ to ‘Privileged’.

LEAVE A REPLY