"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa - your blood WILL be taken.

[Anti Federalist]

Every day that goes by, I ask, "what next" or "is this the straw that will break the camel's back?"

And every time, I'm always amazed at Americunt's ability to comply with just about anything, anymore.

I suspect this will be no different.

Feel up my eight year old daughter at the airport? Fine, if it's for safety.

Jab a needle in my arm on the side of the road? Fine, if it's for safety.

Jail more people than any other nation on earth? Fine, if it's for safety.

Invade foreign nations and exterminate large swaths of their population? Fine, if it's for safety.

Erect a surveillance grid that will monitor your every move in real time? Fine, if it's for safety.




"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250

Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.

Not everyone is on board, though.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.

"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

(So, they don't want to, it's the last thing they want to do, but by God, we'll do it, to "save lives" - AF)

She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

[Kylie]

Fucking cunts. The whole lot of them.

I will not comply. You will hear about me on the news. I'll be the tazered/dead one.

Unfortunately for me, I will get lost in the long list of people the cops have murdered that particular day.

[squarepusher]

i think people should be able to drive as drunk as they want

[Anti Federalist]

And in Texas.

Take the poll, 51 opposed to 49 support right now.



'No Refusal' Weekend Program To Exist Year-Round

http://www.ksat.com/news/26315388/detail.html

SAN ANTONIO -- Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed announced plans this week to extend "No Refusal" weekends to every weekend in 2011 as opposed to certain holiday weekends, like New Year's and the Fourth of July.

The move to extend the program drew positive words from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"We're pretty excited about that," said Daniel Garza, youth program specialist with MADD. "It was a great pleasure to hear that this morning that law enforcement is going to get another good tool to be able to combat drunk driving here in San Antonio."

With an estimated 6,000 drunken driving arrests in Bexar county for 2010, MADD feels the program will cut down on arrests in 2011.

"When they're announced and everyone knows that they're coming, they serve as a deterrent," Garza said. "It would be a great pleasure to see it become 365 days."

But criminal lawyers who handle DWI cases see it differently.

"I guess the message they're sending is, 'Get drunk during the week,'" said Jamie Balagia, a lawyer who goes by "DWI Dude".

"They're saying, 'You give us a breath specimen or you give us a blood specimen or we're going to take it anyway,'" George Scharmen, a criminal defense lawyer.

Scharmen said with the district attorney's refusal to take plea bargains in DWI cases, the new policy won't do anything but stretch out cases. He said he has some cases that have waited five years to get to court.

"You have motions to suppress breath and blood draws on the basis of a bad search warrant, on the basis of involuntariness," Scharmen said.

"If they don't have enough evidence against you to make a solid case, how is what little they have enough for a judge to sign a warrant?" added Balagia.

Reed's office released statistics from nine No Refusal weekends between May 2008 and the Fourth of July weekend in 2010. The stats showed that 312 blood tests were taken with an average blood alcohol level of 0.159, nearly twice the legal limit. Twenty-nine of the tests were below the legal limit.

"If you have a special program, there should be a goal and a goal that you can actually show statistically that there's benefit," Balagia said. "Susan Reed can't do that."

"The implication is that on the No Refusal weekend they have a tendency to get more convictions or they have a tendency to get better evidence," Scharmen said.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AF you will especially like this from Nock.

http://mises.org/daily/4894

I believe that when the historian looks back on the last 20 years of American life, the thing that will puzzle him most is the amount of self-inflicted punishment that Americans seem able to stand. They take it squarely on the chin at the slightest provocation and do not even wait for the count before they are back for more.

[Anti Federalist]

AF you will especially like this from Nock.

http://mises.org/daily/4894

I believe that when the historian looks back on the last 20 years of American life, the thing that will puzzle him most is the amount of self-inflicted punishment that Americans seem able to stand. They take it squarely on the chin at the slightest provocation and do not even wait for the count before they are back for more.

God, that was depressing, considering that was written in 1936.


But apparently they could not rest until they threw their freedom away. They made a present of it to their own politicians, who have made them sweat for their gullibility ever since. They put their liberties in the hands of a praetorian guard made up exactly on the old Roman model, and not only never got them back, but as long as that praetorian guard of professional politicians lives and thrives — which will be quite a while if its numbers keep on increasing at the present rate — they never will.

Fuck me, it's stuff like that, that makes me want to go hunt up the nearest Agent, turn in Zion's secret codes and take the blue pill.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, you must admit yourself you are willing to take it up on the chin when it concerns individuals trading with foreign entities. Here is a great piece from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

http://mises.org/daily/4934

Economic Nationalism Is a Philosophy of War

So, let us reject taxation and tariffs as anything, but most harmful and deletorious.

[devil21]

There's goes your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. If they are forcefully withdrawing blood even against your wishes then they are forcing you to incriminate yourself. Does this also act as a violation of your right to remain silent? Is the right to remain silent ONLY regarding audible sounds? This will be an interesting test for the courts but I think we know what the outcome will be.

[MelissaWV]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license, HOWEVER up until now you've always had the ability to refuse and simply scoot off to jail or home or some other alternative. Now, if you refuse, they're going to jab a needle in your arm. Is it sterile? Are they going to ask you about medical conditions you might have that drawing that much blood at random might bring out? Are they going to be considerate of people with small veins (who might also be sick of having their blood drawn, because it has to be done regularly)? Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users? Are the testing machines themselves going to be calibrated, cleaned, and maintained out in the field?

Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

[aGameOfThrones]

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.



"Furthermore, at one point Trooper Allick told Defendant that he respected Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Video at 16:50. However, one cannot respect another’s Fourth Amendment rights and simultaneously punish that same person for exercising them. Had the other reasons Trooper Allick claimed after the fact been the true basis for any suspicion he may have had, he would have cited those reasons when explaining the situation during the stop on April 14, 2010. Instead, he referred only to Defendant’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent, and he did so on six different occasions. Accordingly, this Court finds those later-mentioned reasons suspect.

. . .

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before it, the Court holds that Trooper Allick lacked an articulable factual basis to suspect wrongdoing. His continued detention of Defendant therefore violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."

United States v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110898 (W.D. Tex. October 13, 2010

[Anti Federalist]

"Furthermore, at one point Trooper Allick told Defendant that he respected Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Video at 16:50. However, one cannot respect another’s Fourth Amendment rights and simultaneously punish that same person for exercising them. Had the other reasons Trooper Allick claimed after the fact been the true basis for any suspicion he may have had, he would have cited those reasons when explaining the situation during the stop on April 14, 2010. Instead, he referred only to Defendant’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent, and he did so on six different occasions. Accordingly, this Court finds those later-mentioned reasons suspect.

. . .

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before it, the Court holds that Trooper Allick lacked an articulable factual basis to suspect wrongdoing. His continued detention of Defendant therefore violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."

United States v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110898 (W.D. Tex. October 13, 2010

Nice, nice find.

Way to cite precedent.

+rep

[Brian4Liberty]

Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users?

That is certain.

[aGameOfThrones]

Nice, nice find.

Way to cite precedent.

+rep

"Mr. Hunnicutt's assertion is not without evidentiary basis. Officer Raines explicitly testified that the refusal to consent persuaded him Mr. Hunnicutt "had something to hide." III R. at 30. Although ample other factors supporting reasonable suspicion were present here, as well as alternative justifications for all searching and further detention, we emphasize that refusal to consent should not have been considered in determining reasonable suspicion.

...

Any other rule would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements, as well as the consent doctrine. These legal principles would be considerably less effective if citizens' insistence that searches and seizures be conducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary.

United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1998)

[LibForestPaul]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license
Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

Indeed. So one has a license to drive, and refuses to consent. Why such an intrusion? Could not a Breathalyzer refusal punishment fine simply be made greater than that of a DUI offense? The reasons given for this being NECESSARY are lies.

[economics102]

This is of course a rather disturbing development. But, I have to ask out of fairness to the state law enforcement -- if breathalyzer tests are unreliable (and thus refused on good advice from lawyers) and a mandatory blood test is of course highly objectionable, how DOES the state enforce it's 0.8 blood-achohol rule? It sounds like we would either need some other more accurate non-invasive test, or the law would have to be written based on some other measurement.

So, how should things be done? How can anyone be convicted of a DUI without either test?

[Anti Federalist]

This is of course a rather disturbing development. But, I have to ask out of fairness to the state law enforcement -- if breathalyzer tests are unreliable (and thus refused on good advice from lawyers) and a mandatory blood test is of course highly objectionable, how DOES the state enforce it's 0.8 blood-achohol rule? It sounds like we would either need some other more accurate non-invasive test, or the law would have to be written based on some other measurement.

So, how should things be done? How can anyone be convicted of a DUI without either test?

The way it used to be done, obvious impairment.

.08 BAC effects each person differently, some, more so than others.

That's assuming that there should even be such a thing as drunk driving laws, which I don't think there should be.

[daviddee]

...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The blood drawing at the side of the road is one thing to make note of... what is worse is the "drive through justice system".

Judges, just waiting at the side of the road, to aid and abet the gestapo's actions.

Checks and balances are supposed to prevent the "deciders" from coordinated actions with the "enforcers".

Now all we need is a majority of congressmen at the side of the road so they can create laws at the same time. Law create, enforced, and your guilt all proven in less than minutes.

No, what will happen is that those persons will just give their powers to one 'job'. We will all have Judge Dredd's on the side of road. Lovely picture, that is, isn't it?

[amy31416]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license, HOWEVER up until now you've always had the ability to refuse and simply scoot off to jail or home or some other alternative. Now, if you refuse, they're going to jab a needle in your arm. Is it sterile? Are they going to ask you about medical conditions you might have that drawing that much blood at random might bring out? Are they going to be considerate of people with small veins (who might also be sick of having their blood drawn, because it has to be done regularly)? Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users? Are the testing machines themselves going to be calibrated, cleaned, and maintained out in the field?

Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

I pass out from blood tests, and actually had a petit mal seizure the first time I tried to donate blood. I'd cause 'em some problems...especially because my veins are extremely difficult to find, the last GP I had couldn't find them...yeah...I'd probably sue.

Seriously...a cop drawing blood on the side of the road--how much more insane can it get?

Nuns/old ladies/folks with medical conditions being humiliated by the TSA.
Cops shooting little girls.
Cops shooting harmless dogs.
Cops shooting restrained people in the back.
Cops stealing your cash/valuables and getting away with it due to "suspicion."
Cops/CPS taking kids because of your politics.

None of that will motivate anyone to take real action...the only motivator will be when the welfare/SS checks stop rolling in.

Don't know what else to say...there's no words.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

..

[guitarlifter]

The way it used to be done, obvious impairment.

.08 BAC effects each person differently, some, more so than others.

That's assuming that there should even be such a thing as drunk driving laws, which I don't think there should be.

Exactly. Drunk driving is a victimless action. Manslaughter, on the other hand, has a victim. If drunkenness increases the rate of manslaughter, and severe punish ensues from manslaughter, then people are less likely to drive drunk. What's that concept called again? Oh yeah. Responsibility.

[j6p]

Hearing about this reminds me of this. So much for freedom in these southern republican states.

The Reality of Red-State Fascism
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.





Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.

This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.

The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by, Washington's kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo, Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as follows:

a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works; plus a repudiation of Clinton's Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads…. what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center. Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for American-style central planning…. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes, mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that.

This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern "responsibly" rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as another party takes control.

Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course. In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against "kamikaze missions" and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of governing better than others.

Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: "Unfortunately, the conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that Gingrich will succeed not only in betraying, but in conning the revolutionary public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go home." The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public, businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the bi-partisan ruling elites.

The 1994 revolution failed of course, in part because the anti-government opposition was intimidated into silence by the Oklahoma City bombing of April 1995. The establishment somehow managed to pin the violent act of an ex-military man on the right-wing libertarianism of the American bourgeoisie. It was said by every important public official at that time that to be anti-government was to give aid and support to militias, secessionists, and other domestic terrorists. It was a classic intimidation campaign but, combined with a GOP leadership that never had any intention to change DC, it worked to shut down the opposition.

In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes is probably the least justifiable ground. It's almost as if that entire campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.

In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie, driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The much heralded "leave us alone" coalition had been thoroughly transformed in a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as it does today.

There are many good reasons to be anti-leftist, but let us revisit what Mises said in 1956 concerning the anti-socialists of his day. He pointed out that many of these people had a purely negative agenda, to crush the leftists and their bohemian ways and their intellectual pretension. He warned that this is not a program for freedom. It was a program of hatred that can only degenerate into statism.

The moral corruption, the licentiousness and the intellectual sterility of a class of lewd would-be authors and artists is the ransom mankind must pay lest the creative pioneers be prevented from accomplishing their work. Freedom must be granted to all, even to base people, lest the few who can use it for the benefit of mankind be hindered. The license which the shabby characters of the quartier Latin enjoyed was one of the conditions that made possible the ascendance of a few great writers, painters and sculptors. The first thing a genius needs is to breathe free air.

He goes on to urge that anti-leftists work to educate themselves about economics, so that they can have a positive agenda to displace their purely negative one. A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has received cheers. And they are not only cheering Bush's reelection; they have embraced tyrannical control of society as a means toward accomplishing their anti-leftist ends.

After September 11, even those whose ostensible purpose in life is to advocate less government changed their minds. Even after it was clear that 9-11 would be used as the biggest pretense for the expansion of government since the stock market crash of 1929, the Cato Institute said that libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and determination."

The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hatred of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in, filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of this great Christian nation.

I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.

Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

Paul Craig Roberts is right: "In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush." Again: "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."

In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism. Why fascist? Because it is not leftist in the sense of egalitarian or redistributionist. It has no real beef with business. It doesn't sympathize with the downtrodden, labor, or the poor. It is for all the core institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure who knows better than anyone else what the country and world needs, and has a special connection to the Creator that permits him to discern the best means to bring it about.

The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while adopting an ideology – even without knowing it or being entirely conscious of the change – that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept. For a long time, we've tended to see the primary threat to liberty as coming from the left, from the socialists who sought to control the economy from the center. But we must also remember that the sweep of history shows that there are two main dangers to liberty, one that comes from the left and the other that comes from the right. Europe and Latin America have long faced the latter threat, but its reality is only now hitting us fully.

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.

There is no need to advance the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, it is time to recognize that the left today does represent a counterweight to the right, just as it did in the 1950s when the right began to adopt anti-communist militarism as its credo. In a time when the term patriotism means supporting the nation's wars and statism, a libertarian patriotism has more in common with that advanced by The Nation magazine:

The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers the gentle strains of 'America the Beautiful' to the strident cadences of 'Hail to the Chief' and 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' This patriotism is rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services steady and unpretentious. This patriotism too has deep roots and long continuity in our history.

Ten years ago, these were "right wing" sentiments; today the right regards them as treasonous. What should this teach us? It shows that those who saw the interests of liberty as being well served by the politicized proxies of free enterprise alone, family alone, Christianity alone, law and order alone, were profoundly mistaken. There is no proxy for liberty, no cause that serves as a viable substitute, and no movement by any name whose success can yield freedom in our time other than the movement of freedom itself. We need to embrace liberty and liberty only, and not be fooled by groups or parties or movements that only desire a temporary liberty to advance their pet interests.

As Rothbard said in 1965:

The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths.

There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need for the party of liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and established institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of government, and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that impulse toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse is there, tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power doesn’t stand a chance.

[libertarian4321]

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

So that's a vote against the check points?

[Anti Federalist]

Good advice, but from my reading of this article, refusal constitutes "probable cause" which then triggers a warrant from Judge Dredd on the side of the road, which then leads to taking blood or I'm assuming immediate arrest.


The title of this article is somewhat misleading. There are people who think that law enforcement is trying to make everyone blow or be pricked. The breathalyzers and needles can only be used for probable cause.

The needle issue is separate from the checkpoint issue. I don't know much about the needle issue, so I'll let someone more well-versed to comment on it.

I regularly keep tabs on the issue of checkpoints. This whole thing should be moot because you can decline cooperation at a checkpoint. Keep your windows rolled up. Lock your doors. You do not have to talk to the police. Law enforcement counts on the unwitting cooperation of motorists to keep checkpoints in business. You need not volunteer any information. There is a Liberty Forest member named Coastie who posted that he purposely goes through checkpoints in Panama City FL for the express purpose of declining cooperation. The police immediately wave him through.

Here are some better options at checkpoints. Note how all of these motorists take control of the situation. I think that being assertive leaves much fewer options for law enforcement. Law enforcement often counts on the voluntary cooperation of motorists, but backs down with assertive motorists.


Las Vegas man declines conversation with law enforcement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8


Illegal alien tried to steal my camera!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzlmMRU6pI


Why won't the border patrol show ID to the motorist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1e7EBze6ho

Note how this Border Patrol agent is unprepared for this motorist encounter. She nervously fumbles, but soon the motorist is on his way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw


This border patrol is a little tougher, but again, the motorist is soon on his way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irYJVn2k6zU

Border Patrol agent wants to search car. He says to the motorist, "Your car is dirty."

Try again, BP agent:
http://www.vid3o.net/view/_4zYizaMmD...heckpoint.html

IMPORTANT NOTE: These Border Patrol checkpoints are not located on any international border. They can be up to 100 miles within the U.S. border.

[Anti Federalist]

Always ready to post this again.

Required viewing folks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[jclay2]

And people wonder why I despise the police so much. If there are "good police", why are they not out there protesting this type of attack on our freedom?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

..

[MelissaWV]

The article title is misleading. It is not the case that everyone passing through will have their blood drained. It will be for those suspected of impairment.

Probable cause would potentially be established by the traditional methods of detecting impairment. There is no probable cause IF you make it clear that you have no interest in interacting with the checkpoint law enforcement. Do not consent. Be clear. Be assertive.

The news here has been pretty clear that refusing is no longer acceptable. The clip I saw on the local news even said "no" is no longer an option, period. Everything I have read places no real constraints on what constitutes "probable cause" at these checkpoints. The concerns I experessed earlier also seem to be flying right past champions of this method.


"We don’t want to violate people’s civil rights.... That’s the last thing we want to do, but we’re here to save lives.”

-Linda Unfried, MADD

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[..

[Anti Federalist]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, and here recently, I'm becoming more and more convinced to do this myself.

But make no mistake, following the advice in the bold that you typed, at a roadside checkpoint, with a whole squad of 'riod head cops hut-hutting around just itching to jack someone up, you are taking a serious risk at your ass getting lit up.

Just sayin'...be aware.


The news has been clear about refusing what? "No" to what? Who is the source of this information? A local news anchor? A writer who did not bother to check the facts? Or an administrative police sergeant attempting to intimidate motorists with made-up marketing phrases? This term of No Refusal is simply a gimmick in the vein of driving privilege or zero tolerance. People have already blinked and surrendered before the festivities have even begun.

I believe the remedy is to challenge and take control of a situaiton. Roll up your windows. Lock your doors. Install a camera on your dash. Film the officers with your cell phone. Record the audio, at the very least. Do not interact with law enforcement.

These checkpoints rely on the cooperation of unwitting motorists. Read your state statute regarding checkpoints. The statute in North Carolina makes it plainly clear that a motorist must be violating a provision of that chapter to be detained. That is simply the rule of law everywhere, regardless of explicit language in a state statute. The fact that this is explicitly spelled out in our NC statute makes MY refusing even easier. A police officer can't just make up probable cause on the fly. Nothing is foolproof, of course, but your recording an encounter will go a long way toward strongly discouraging misconduct. No violation means no detaining. You, as a motorist, must be clear and assertive in your demand to leave immediately.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

This isn't violation of search - taking someones blood is punishment, something a judge can not sign an order for even in this system. If someone tries to take your blood or feel you up at the airport, you have a right to fight back.

As far as Americans fighting back, I think the line has been crossed, not by everyday Americans who are extremely patient, but by the number of people being abused. People are choosing sides because they have to.

Many years ago, I had the opposite problem. I was beat up by a cop badly for *asking* for a breath analyzer test. I was pulled over for no reason, and I wanted proof that I wasn't drunk. When I kept asking him for it, he beat me up pretty bad, including several blows to the back of the head, and one to the face that left an imprint of his knuckles.

My lawyer had a lawsuit for several hundred thousand. To counter this, the cops got a couple of his buddies to commit perjury, and we got a letter from the DA saying if we dropped our federal lawsuit, they would drop the phony criminal charges. Highly illegal? Without a doubt. The entire justice system has been rotten for decades. I still have that letter, and pretty damning proof that the cops committed perjury (its hard to lie about injuries seen by four different doctors in the space of 24 hours after the beating).

Those people haven't been brought to justice, and this story never even made the news. For every story you see in the news we are all disgusted about, there are 50 you do not.

I don't wonder when Americans will wake up, they have no choice because everyone is being affected by this - it isn't isolated incidents by any means. I wonder rather when I can trust my neighbors again to protect me as I have always protected them.

The people wake up on the local level. We need elected sheriffs, and fully informed grand juries to investigate all this trash and indict.

[Heimdallr]

This isn't violation of search - taking someones blood is punishment, something a judge can not sign an order for even in this system. If someone tries to take your blood or feel you up at the airport, you have a right to fight back.

As far as Americans fighting back, I think the line has been crossed, not by everyday Americans, but by the number of people being abused. People are choosing sides because they have to.

Many years ago, I had the opposite problem. I was beat up by a cop badly for *asking* for a breath analyzer test. I was pulled over for no reason, and I wanted proof that I wasn't drunk. When I kept asking him for it, he beat me up pretty bad, including several blows to the back of the head, and one to the face that left an imprint of his knuckles.

My lawyer had a lawsuit for several hundred thousand. To counter this, the cops got a couple of his buddies to commit perjury, and we got a letter from the DA saying if we dropped our federal lawsuit, they would drop the phony criminal charges. Highly illegal? Without a doubt. The entire justice system has been rotten for decades. I still have that letter, and pretty damning proof that the cops committed perjury (its hard to lie about injuries seen by four different doctors in the space of 24 hours after the beating).

Those people haven't been brought to justice, and this story never even made the news. For every story you see in the news we are all disgusted about, there are 50 you do not.

I don't wonder when Americans will wake up, they have no choice because everyone is being affected by this - it isn't isolated incidents by any means. I wonder rather when I can trust my neighbors again to protect me as I have always protected them.

The people wake up on the local level. We need elected sheriffs, and fully informed grand juries to investigate all this trash and indict.



I don't get it. Why don't you get 'em for this? What's holding you back?

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I don't get it. Why don't you get 'em for this? What's holding you back?

I or "us". That is the problem. Standing alone, it was darn hard to do anything. *THAT* is the problem.

That is changing at the moment I perceive. It was worse just a few years ago, because it was happening to people individually. Why don't *we* do something about this - all of it.

FYI - I posted a list of jailed political prisoners. All of them I posted were intimately connected with the liberty movement. I didn't see that thread bumped at all. Without a "we" - "we" are going to keep losing.

I mean - CRAP - some of these are the finest names in liberty, all jailed on trumped up charges, including Schiff's dad, the Ron Paul liberty dollar guy, Marc the "king of pot" - who used to post on these forums.

Quite frankly, it isn't safe for any of us to resist, until there is some knowledge that the rest of us will protect them, including their families - and *at least* write them some letters in jail for crying out loud. They were some of the best, and that thread didn't even get bumped. The *minimum* that could be done is write a letter.

Why don't "I" do something indeed. I did do something. I asked for a breath analyzer test.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Never to late to stand together and help those being punished for standing up for liberty. Shameless bump :)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?273997-Political-Prisoners-List

[osan]

That's assuming that there should even be such a thing as drunk driving laws, which I don't think there should be.

+1

[osan]

Exactly. Drunk driving is a victimless action. Manslaughter, on the other hand, has a victim. If drunkenness increases the rate of manslaughter, and severe punish ensues from manslaughter, then people are less likely to drive drunk. What's that concept called again? Oh yeah. Responsibility.

I've been advocating this position for 25 years and most people look at me as if a dead fetus were growing out of the side of my head. Oh wait...

Consider the crime of "conspiracy". A friend and I decide to write an "assassinate the president" novel. In so doing we go through the contriving of how the deed would be done. Technically, we are guilty of the crime of "conspiracy" and could in fact spend a very long time in prison because of it.

This nation is gone wonky in the biggest and worst ways.

We're in deep poo.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

..