Skip to main content

See also:

State's biggest theft ring seeks to expand

Governor Susana Martinez has exposed herself, yet again, as just another fascist politician. This time she wants to steal cars.

Of course, her intended victims are people who get no sympathy from the State-worshipers and control freaks that make up the majority of the voters, so she's treading safe territory.

Her dishonesty is exposed even more clearly by the fact that the loot would be used for enforcement rather than education. In other words, the money gained by this theft would pay for more thieves and more theft, rather than in reducing the pool of people to be stolen from.

She is happy to point out that such a theft ring has been operating "successfully" in Albuquerque for some time, and that it can be extended to the entire state. Plus, The State quite often steals cars (and other things) so this is really nothing but an expansion of the aggression and another illustration that The State is nothing but crime writ large.

*

Don't forget the thing that could stop abuses like this- the Bill of Rights penalty clause:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,

evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.” www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501

Comments

  • JJ Swiontek 3 years ago

    The logical end of the asset seizure process is seizure of all assets for the most minor of offenses. A science fiction author (I can't remember who) wrote the story of a man on trial for repeated speeding infractions who was going to be killed by the all powerful state to have his organs harvested for the longevity of the elite ruling class. It was the ultimate in asset seizure.

  • Markus Andras 3 years ago

    I'd like to see you tell someone that has lost a loved one to drunk driving stupidity that driving impaired is a 'minor offense', I'd bet heavily they'd beg to differ.

  • JJ Swiontek 3 years ago

    The logical end of the asset seizure process is seizure of all assets for the most minor of offenses. A science fiction author (I can't remember who) wrote the story of a man on trial for repeated speeding infractions who was going to be killed by the all powerful state to have his organs harvested for the longevity of the elite ruling class. It was the ultimate in asset seizure.

  • Markus Andras 3 years ago

    Education will do little to nothing to stop those that choose to drive impaired. I'm completely for this program, I say use the money to bolster the 'Safe Ride' program which offers free rides, or local cab companies, anyone that chooses to drive impared rather than call a cab or 'safe ride' deserves to pay for the rides of those that are responsible.

  • Profile picture of Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal 3 years ago

    Theft is theft and justifications fall flat. It would still be theft if the loot were used for education or "safe rides" rather than more "enforcement", and if the drunk drivers were actually, really drunk rather than the new watered-down lie of "impaired" or something.
    Laws never solve anything. After all, the State sometimes kills people for murder, yet murder still occurs.

  • debj 3 years ago

    Dear Kent,
    I suppose you'd rather see the family of a victim take their revenge on the perp and legally get away with it. I lean libertarian until it comes to behaviors proven to have high potential for harming others (I don't include gun ownership for self-defense or hunting purposes). Driving drunk is one of those behaviors. Since the reality is that we live in a "state" which keeps track with neighbors of how we score on this issue, and New Mexico is ALWAYS at the bottom, we need to do better at protecting the innocent. We have existing roads which must be shared; therefore, drivers must be required to meet minimum requirements or lose the privilege and the vehicle that goes along with it.

  • Profile picture of Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal 3 years ago

    Debj, you have fallen for some of the collectivist lies that permeate our damaged society.

    Not revenge; restitution.

    Driving is NOT a privilege; it is a basic inalienable human right.

    "Potential to harm" can be anything. Anything. You can not live without some professional victim claiming your behavior has the potential to harm someone. This is pathetic and disgusting- and the fact that we coddle such whiners is horrible.

    Until actual harm has been committed there is no debt and no reason to pay restitution. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is. When harm has been caused, "The State" is never the victim who has been harmed and would never legitimately be the recipient of the loot from the stolen cars.

    The only reason "we" have "shared roads" is due to a forced, coercive monopoly that prevents a market solution for roads (or other alternatives).

    Sorry, but "drunk driving laws", which have been watered down to the point of absurdity, are a terrible force for wrong in our society and need to be disposed of.

    Shake off the statism and think for yourself.

  • Profile picture of kevin george
    kevin george 3 years ago

    Kent, I have to agree with your last post. Driving or any form of movement is a basic human right. DWI laws are immoral. reckless driving is a crime. there is a big difference. One is based on a subjective standard [DWI]. While reckless driving can be objectively proved. Even easier now with the proliferation of video.If there is no victim then where is a crime? This is just another way to marginalize those without resources even further. I have met a few guys who have gotten DWI'S for sleeping in their cars. One told me he was at a party, went out to his van--on private property--and was going to sack out till morning when he was charged with DWI. So even if you try to be responsible your still going down. Sad but true.

  • Pro. Mobutu Packabowlla 2 years ago

    It's another bait and switch. The "STATE" wants you too belevie that you own your property. You don't own your own property. the state already does. If the state took everyone's property all at once, someone would notice, plus there would be nothing left too steal, excetpy you.