The war on unmolested travel has reached a new, dangerous, low. No longer must you only be concerned about the states' highwaymen simply robbing you as a part of their officially authorized job, but now they can "legally" penetrate your body with a foreign object. That is rape. It is also a stabbing.
Remember, rape is not about "sex", but about domination and humiliation. It doesn't matter whether or not the rapist gets sexual gratification from his act. The only thing that matters is that the victim is being harmed. This is a humiliating act of bodily penetration by someone who sees themselves as dominant. Such an act can never be right or good, and is never justifiable for any reason. Not "safety", and certainly not "the common good". I can't understand how anyone could consider this a reasonable act. Rapists need to be resisted, and decisively stopped no matter where they are encountered or who they are working for.
I say again: Forced blood theft by LEOs is rape. This matter is a definitive line-in-the-sand. No free person with an ounce of dignity would ever comply or submit to such an abuse as long as they were humanly able to resist, nor would any honorable person ever criticize anyone who fights back against such abuse. This needs to be stated loudly and clearly by every good person in America: "You attempt to rape me or anyone in my family at your own risk." Make no mistake: resistance will result in you being electrocuted or killed. At the very least, for refusing to submit, the state will forbid you to drive your own vehicle anymore. They are still wrong.
Courts have declared such rapes to be "legal". So what. "Legal" has nothing to do with it, since that term merely means "governmentally approved". Many things that are evil are "legal", and many that are good or neutral are "illegal". That a coercive collective which enforces a monopoly on force declares that it approves of an act shouldn't matter one tiny bit to you or me. Especially when it is approving an act that serves to advance its own power and control. If the "laws" permit this, the "laws" are wrong and need to be changed to reflect reality, or the "laws" need to be broken by those who are told to enforce them, and resisted by those subjected to them.
If you are a cop there comes a time where you can go along with department policy or you can choose to do the right thing and refuse to be a part of the growing cancer. This is that time. Will you don your brown shirt and go goose-stepping off the cliff of tyranny, or will you "grow a pair" and say "Not on my watch!"? Consider your answer carefully. One choice is right; the other is wrong.
If a person is obviously not able to control his vehicle for any reason and is a real threat to the innocent, I support the self-defensive act of helping get him off the road. If a person harms others with his vehicle, for any reason, hold him responsible. Anyone who causes any harm needs to accept the consequences of his actions, whether he is a drunk driver, a LEO, or both.
I am sorry that some innocent people have died due to drunk drivers. That is still no reason to set up road blocks nor to advocate the violent attacking of travelers because some LEO either suspects the person may have some alcohol in their blood, or because some LEO is a perverted predator who gets his jollies from hurting people. The "laws" are only making the problem worse and making the real drunk drivers more dangerous. And this will keep happening until we plainly and unequivocally say "Enough!"
Well, I have said it.
Comments
Yeah, this is a terrible idea. There's no way I'm letting Joe the Kountry Kop stick me with a syringe. Even real doctors miss the vein sometimes, so I really don't think if J.K.K. did it, it would be a pretty sight. It's not just humiliating and painful (I hate needles), it's dangerous. I followed the link to the actual news article. Can you just opt for a breathalyzer instead?
"Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials."
Wow, any questions?
So it's apparently not enough any more that the state controls making the law, enforcing the law (brother Darryl), AND judging the law (other brother Darryl): those pesky trials are just getting too much in the way.
Anyone out there still believe the state respects any of your rights?
Dakota- The LEO might let you opt for the breathalyzer (another violation, if you ask me) unless his main goal is to cause the pain and humiliation. I know of too many examples of that kind of personality defect in LEOs to trust them.
I also have read of way too many cases of crime labs fudging the data in order to reach the findings the state wants to even begin to trust the results of the blood test.
As a former phlebotomist and libertarian, this is disturbing on multiple levels.
It's all about "compliance". Do as you're told "slave" and you may live another day to produce something for us, your masters, to feed off of.
Another big problem is that this business with the syringe goes both ways. If they can take blood OUT of you without your consent, think what they could put INTO you without your consent. Pretty much anything they want, I would guess. Like the "mandatory" vaccine you "neglected" to take? This idea gets scarier the more I think about it.
Kent, I couldn't help myself; I had to write about this too. If you haven't already, check out Grigg's take--it's typically classic.
Well...let my say this as tactfully as I can. This whole country is headed for some kind of crash, most likely economic in nature, and when that happens there will be a balancing of the books on a variety of levels. So take the names now, for the ass-kickin to be delivered later.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!