RESTORED: 3/27/22   TAGS:  Privacy, Right to Choose, Private Property, Public Safety, Freedom of Movement, Agenda 2030, Cars lost in FIRES, Mandatory Seatbelts, Mandatory Car seats and boosters, Self Driving Cars, No Private Autos by 2030, No Car Seat/No Baby, Cars destroyed in Floods, Cars destroyed by Rioters, Rioters drive Mercedes

Life in the United States of America has been so blessed for so many years.  I am a member of the most blessed Generation.  We knew America at its best.  It will never be the same again.  Do you remember how you felt the day you got your Driver’s License?  How about your very first car?? How exhilarating!  So exciting… nothing in the world makes you feel more grown up… until the day your first child is born.  The sense of awe and responsibility tempered by the pride and excitement.

Years ago there was an auto sales slogan that said “It’s not just your car, it’s your freedom”.  It was a catchy phrase and a great sales pitch…but really it was very profound.  Without your car, how do you bring your groceries home, or pick up a meal at a restaurant?  How do you take your kids to the doctor, or your Mom to Church on Sunday?  How do you get back and forth to work everyday?  How do you get to those special family gatherings or your best friends wedding?  How do you get to see the sights across America, or take your family on a camping trip?

YOUR CAR is your FREEDOM.  It is as important a part of the American Dream as owning a home.

Like all your other rights… those two are soon to be just distant memories of the past.

Check out my article: LOSING The Right That Guarantees Your Freedom!



Carson Johns


    Excerpts only, view the full article by clicking the title link.

My First Car

My First Car: A Compilation of Stories

Extra Mile Staff

The Dream Car

I remember the year I turned 16. My main focus was getting my license. I signed up for my driving test the very first day I could and passed. The next day, my amazing parents came through with my dream car. It was supposed to be for my mom and me to “share,” but I sort of had that wonderful lady wrapped around my finger.

The car was a brand new white Dodge Shadow convertible with blue interior – a dream car for any 16-year-old girl. In hindsight, it was a terribly-made car and sounded like there was a bird in the engine from the first week I drove it.

That car was the backdrop to so many memories with my friends. I brought it to college in Boston my junior year, but by the time I graduated, it was hard to ignore the Shadow’s shortcomings. I traded it in for an embarrassingly low amount and signed a lease on a Nissan Altima. This transition to my first grown-up car was about more than just driving. It was about putting aside the careless revelry of my teenage years and embracing myself as a fully-realized adult. — Ellyn S.

First Car


The Controllers want to bring in the New World Order, their plan for total control.  It is too hard to control people who hold on to a sense of freedom reinforced by their ability to hop in a car and go where they please.   So, they are busy destroying as many vehicles as they can.  I think they are probably enjoying all the different ways they can watch our rights and freedoms go up in smoke.

Think about all the fires and explosions that have been happening all over our nation in the past 5 years.  Way too many for me to cover here.  I am going to post a number of them just to help you envision what is happening.

Understand that there is plenty of cause for suspecting these fires and explosions are not organically occurring.  They are created by those diabolical enemies of mankind who want to reduce the population by 90%, and maintain the rest in complete submission.

Nov 12, 2018
Fire crews and police have so far found the skeletal remains of 29 people among the ashes of the Camp Fire in northern California, seven of whom burned to death in their cars as they tried to flee. Survivors described how their escape routes were either blocked by felled power lines and trees, or else so clogged with traffic that they couldn’t move. As flames licked at the car doors, many described climbing out and running through a hellscape of smoke and fire, clutching pets and valuables as they went. Original Article:… Original Video:…


Credit…Jim Wilson/The New York Times


DMV identifies thousands of vehicles destroyed in wildfires

Posted on January 18, 2018

Sonoma County Recovers

Sacramento — The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is working with law enforcement agencies to identify and update records of an estimated 4,000 vehicles destroyed by the Northern California wildfires in October.

“We’ve supported survivors through the Local Assistance Centers, and now we need to ensure all destroyed vehicles are properly marked and recorded to prevent fraud,” DMV Director Jean Shiomoto said.

Destroyed vehicles must be identified to prevent the cloning or clearing of the title of a stolen vehicle or fraudulently linking the information of a destroyed vehicle to a damaged and unsafe vehicle.

DMV investigators trained in examining vehicles are working with the California Highway Patrol, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and the Santa Rosa Police Department to identify these vehicles. The officers mark unrecognizable vehicles with spray paint and log the address where they are found, along with any other descriptive information about the vehicle. The DMV then updates the vehicle’s record as a total loss if the owner has not already updated the vehicle record. The operation began January 11 and is anticipated to be complete by the end of the month.

Under federal law, the state is required to report vehicles declared a total loss to the National Motor Vehicle Titling Information System (NMVTIS), a national database that protects purchasers of used cars from concealed vehicle histories nationwide.  The work of marking the destroyed vehicles allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue cleanup efforts that will allow residents to rebuild in their communities.

On October 9, 2017, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an emergency proclamation for Napa, Sonoma and Yuba counties due to the effects of multiple wildfires. The DMV continues to work with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services in the recovery efforts.



There have been multiple stories that indicate that these riots are funded and generated by political power sources.


Looters Caught Arriving In Luxury $350K Rolls-Royce To Ransack Store
Conservative US ^ | 06.04.2020 | Natalie D.

Posted on 6/4/2020, 3:46:45 PM by USA Conservative

Someone is organizing criminals and vandals to loot and destroy cities but the corporate media don’t seem all that interested in getting to the bottom of it. In fact, Democrats and their allies in the press have been actively engaging in misdirection, lamely accusing white supremacists of being behind the mayhem plaguing “peaceful protests.”

The USA is currently in a state of turmoil. Violent protests have been going on for some days. The incidents of looting have been reported multiple times but this loot was a bit unusual. The video shows a group of masked men hopping out of two cars( Jeep Wrangler & RR Cullinan) and storming into the store. After looting the store, unidentified masked men came running and loaded their vehicles with boxes of stolen goods before fleeing in their $350,000 vehicle.

The damning footage was shot in the SoHo neighborhood in lower Manhattan, New York.

The high-end Cullinan SUV has a starting price of $333,000, but its price-as-delivered regularly stretches far above the $350,000 figure.

Video below: (video uploaded on the site no url)

As the Daily Mail reported looters in New York City were dropped off in luxury cars with power tools and suitcases before being picked up and driven to next location, according to eyewitnesses.

Police are said to be looking into numerous reports the rioters were organized and are now checking license plate numbers of vehicles that dropped groups off. Some are even said to have used a stolen U-Haul to carry out their crimes.

One witness to the ‘organized looting was Carla Murphy, who lives in Manhattan. She told ABC: ‘Cars would drive up, let off the looters, unload power tools and suitcases and then the cars would drive away.’

But NYPD are still said to be investigating claims those who looted stores were driven to and from spots in Manhattan.

Murphy added: ‘Then the cars would come back pick them up and then drive off to the next spot. They seemed to know exactly where they were going.

Some of the people were local, but there were a lot of out-of-towners.

NYPD Commissioner Shea told NBC News Saturday he estimated at least 20 percent of the protesters arrested were from out of town, but suggested that number could be higher. No additional specifics were shared.

Local business owners in Washington, California, and Chicago have also suggested the looters were part of organized crime rings there.


I hope that you are aware of the FLOODING that has been going on all over our nation for the last 5 or 10 years.  Ever increasing in frequency, duration and level of devastation.  These floods are destroying homes, crops, livestock, roads, dams, bridges and of course cars!  


New Jersey flash floods send cars floating down river, piling up against bridge
Click the link above to watch the video

16. Property Rights and the Constitution

Congress should

• enact legislation for guiding federal agencies and influencing courts that outlines the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause;
• follow the traditional common law in defining “private property,” “public use,” and “just compensation”;
• treat property taken through regulation the same as property taken through physical seizure; and
• provide a single forum in which property owners may seek injunctive relief and just compensation promptly.

America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely. With the growth of modern government, however, those rights have been seriously compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a principled, much less comprehensive, theory for remedying those violations. That failure has led to the birth of the property rights movement in state after state. It is time now for Congress to step in — to correct the federal government’s own violations and to set out a standard that courts might notice as they adjudicate complaints about state violations.

The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” There are two basic ways government can take property: (1) outright, by condemning the property and taking title; and (2) through regulations that take uses, leaving the title with the owner — so‐​called regulatory takings. In the first case, the title is all too often taken not for a public but for a private use; and rarely is the compensation received by the owner just. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses; and when he is, the compensation is again inadequate.

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the problem of uncompensated regulatory takings, requiring compensation in some cases; but its decisions were largely ad hoc, leaving most owners to bear the losses themselves. Thus, owners today can get compensation when the title is actually taken, as just noted; when the property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily; when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of the property; and when government attaches conditions to permits that are unreasonable, disproportionate, or unrelated to the purpose behind the permit requirement. But despite those modest advances, toward the end of its October 2004 term, the Court decided three property rights cases in which the owners had legitimate complaints, and in all three, the owners lost. One of those cases was Kelo v. City of New London, in which the city condemned Ms. Kelo’s property only to transfer it to another private party that the city believed could make better use of it. In so doing, the Court simply brushed aside the “public use” restraint on the power of government to take private property. The upshot, however, was a public outcry across the nation and the introduction of reforms in over 40 states. But those reforms varied substantially, and nearly all leave unaddressed the far more common problem of regulatory takings.

At bottom, then, the Court has yet to develop a principled and comprehensive theory of property rights, much less a comprehensive solution to the problem of government takings. For that, Congress (or the Court) is going to have to turn to first principles, much as the old common law judges did. We need to begin, then, not with the public law of the Constitution as presently interpreted, but with the private law of property.

Property: The Foundation of All Rights

It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every right claim, after all, is a claim to some thing — either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding. John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: “Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.” And James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, echoed those thoughts when he wrote, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

Much moral and legal confusion would be avoided if we understood that all of our rights — all of the things to which we are “entitled” — can be reduced to property. That would enable us to separate genuine rights — things to which we hold title — from specious “rights” — things to which other people hold title, which we may want for ourselves. It was the genius of the old common law, grounded in reason and custom, that it grasped that point. And the common law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another; and individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.

Legal Protection for Property Rights

It would be to no avail, however, if property, once acquired, could not be used and enjoyed — if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal were not legally protected. Thus, common law judges, charged with settling disputes between neighbors, drew on principles of reason, efficiency, and custom to craft a law of property that by and large respected the equal rights of all.

In a nutshell, the basic rights they recognized, beyond acquisition and disposal, were the right of sole dominion — variously described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass, or a right of quiet enjoyment, which all can exercise equally at the same time and in the same respect — and the right of active use, at least to the point where such use violates the rights of others to quiet enjoyment. Just where that point is will vary with the facts, of course, and that is the business of courts to determine, although legislatures can draw the broad outlines. Given our modern permitting regime, however, the point to be noticed here is that the presumption of the common law was ordinarily on the side of free use. People were not required to obtain a permit before using their property, that is, just as people today are not required to obtain a permit before speaking. Rather, the burden was on those who objected to a given use to show how it violated a right of theirs. That amounts to having to show that their neighbor’s use takes something they own free and clear. If they failed in that, the use could continue.

Thus, the common law limits the right of free use only when a use encroaches on the property rights of others, as in the classic law of nuisance and risk. The implications of that limit should not go unnoticed, however, especially in the context of modern environmental protection. Indeed, the belief, common today, that property rights are opposed to environmental protection is so far from the case as to be just the opposite: the right against environmental degradation is a property right. Under common law, properly applied, people cannot use their property in ways that damage their neighbors’ property — defined, again, as taking things those neighbors hold free and clear. Properly conceived and applied, then, property rights are self‐​limiting: they constitute a judicially crafted and enforced regulatory scheme in which rights of active use end when they encroach on the property rights of others.

The Police Power and the Power of Eminent Domain

But if the common law of property defines and protects private rights — the rights of owners with respect to each other — it also serves as a guide for the proper scope and limits of public law — defining the rights of owners and the public with respect to each other. For public law, at least at the federal level, flows from the Constitution; and the Constitution flows from the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence; and those reflect, largely, the common law. The justification of public law begins, then, with our rights, as the Declaration makes clear. Government then follows, not to give us rights through positive law but to recognize and secure the rights we already have through natural law. Thus, to be morally legitimate, the powers of government must be derived from and consistent with those rights.

The two public powers most often at issue in the property rights context are the police power — the power of government mainly to secure rights — and the power of eminent domain — the power to take property for public use upon payment of just compensation, as set forth, by implication, in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

The general police power — the fundamental power of government — is derived from what Locke called the Executive Power, the power each of us has in the state of nature to secure our rights. Thus, as such, this legal power is legitimate since it is nothing more than the public law version of a moral power we already have, by right, which we gave to government to exercise on our behalf when we constituted ourselves as a nation. But its exercise is legitimate only insofar as it is used to secure rights and to provide certain “public goods” like national defense and clean air — narrowly defined as economists do, citing free‐​rider problems, nonexcludability, and nonrivalrous consumption — and only insofar as its use respects the rights of others. Thus, while our rights give rise to the police power, they also limit it. We cannot use the police power for non‐​police‐​power purposes. It is a power mainly to secure rights through restraints or sanctions, not some general power to provide the public with goods and services more broadly defined.

A complication arises in the case of the federal government, however, because there is no general federal police power. Rather, the Constitution establishes a government of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers, leaving most powers, including the general police power, with the states or the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. Consistent with constitutional principle, then, whatever power the federal government has to secure rights is limited to federal territory, is incidental to one of its enumerated powers, or is entailed mainly through the amendments. (See Chapter 15 for greater detail on this point.)

But if the police power is thus limited, then any effort to provide the public with goods and services more broadly must be accomplished under some other power, such as those, in the case of the federal government, that are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet that effort will be constrained by the Takings Clause, which requires that private property taken in pursuit of such ends — whether in whole or in part is irrelevant — must be accompanied by just compensation for the owner of the property. Otherwise the costs of the benefit to the public would fall entirely on the owner. Not to put too fine a point on it, that would amount to theft. Indeed, it was to prohibit that kind of thing that the Framers wrote the Takings Clause in the first place.

Thus, the power of eminent domain — which is not enumerated in the Constitution but is implicit in the Takings Clause — is an instrumental power: It affords a means that enables government, acting under some other power, to pursue other ends — building roads, for example, or saving wildlife. Moreover, unlike the police power, the eminent domain power is not inherently legitimate: Indeed, in a state of nature, prior to the creation of government, none of us would have a right to condemn a neighbor’s property, however worthy our purpose, however much we compensated him. Thus, it is not for nothing that eminent domain was known in the 17th and 18th centuries as “the despotic power.” It arises from practical considerations alone — to enable public projects to go forward without being held hostage to holdouts seeking to exploit the situation by extracting far more than just compensation. As for its justification, the best that can be said for eminent domain is this: the power was ratified by those in the original position; and it is “Pareto superior,” as economists say, meaning that at least one party (the public) is made better off by its use, as evidenced by its willingness to pay, while no one is made worse off, assuming the owner receives just compensation.

When Is Compensation Required?

We come then to the basic question: When do owners have to be compensated as a result of government actions? In general, there are four scenarios to consider.

First, when government actions incidentally reduce property values, but no rights are violated because nothing that belongs free and clear to the owner is taken, no compensation is due. If the government closes a military base or a neighborhood school, for example, or builds a new highway distant from the old one with its commercial enterprises, property values may decline as a result — but nothing was taken. We own our property and all the legitimate uses that go with it, not the value in our property, which is a function of many ever‐​changing factors.

Second, when government acts, under its police power, to secure rights — when it stops someone from polluting, for example, or from excessively endangering others — the restricted owner is not entitled to compensation, whatever his financial losses, because the uses prohibited or “taken” were wrong to begin with. Since there is no right to pollute, no right was taken. Thus, we do not have to pay polluters not to pollute. Here again the question is not whether value was taken but whether a right was taken. Proper uses of the police power take no rights. They protect rights.

Third, when government acts not to secure rights but to provide the public with goods like wildlife habitat, scenic views, or historic preservation, and in so doing prohibits or “takes” some otherwise rightful use, then it is acting, in part, under the eminent domain power and does have to compensate the owner for any losses he may suffer. The principle here is quite simple: the public has to pay for the goods it wants, just like any private person would have to. Bad enough that the public can take what it wants by condemnation; at least it should pay for what it takes rather than ask the owner to bear the full cost of its appetite. It is here, of course, that modern regulatory takings abuses are most common, as governments at all levels try to provide the public with all manner of amenities, especially environmental amenities, “off budget.” As noted above, there is an old‐​fashioned word for that practice — “theft” — and no amount of rationalization about “good reasons” will change that. Even thieves, after all, have “good reasons” for what they do.

Finally, when government, through full condemnation, takes for public use not simply some or all of the owner’s uses but the entire estate, including the title, compensation is clearly due.

Some Implications of a Principled Approach

Starting from first principles, then, we see that there is no difference in principle between the full use of eminent domain just described and a regulatory taking — between taking full title and taking only uses. Thus, the oft‐​heard claim that the Takings Clause requires compensation only for “full” takings will not withstand scrutiny. Giving the clause a natural reading, it speaks simply of “private property.” As Madison wrote (above), “property” denotes all the uses or rights that can rightly be made of a holding. It does not denote simply the underlying estate. In fact, in every area of property law except regulatory takings, we speak of property as being a “bundle of sticks,” any one of which can be bought, sold, rented, bequeathed, what have you. Yet, to enable government to provide the public with goods “off budget” and thus “on the cheap,” takings law has clung to the idea that only if the entire bundle is taken does government have to pay compensation.

That view enables government to extinguish nearly all uses through regulation — and hence to regulate nearly all value out of property — yet escape the compensation requirement because the all‐​but‐​empty title remains with the owner. And it would allow a government to take 90 percent of the value in year one, then come back a year later and take title for a dime on the dollar. Not only is that wrong, it is unconstitutional. It cannot be what the Takings Clause stands for. The principle, rather, is that property is indeed a bundle of sticks, a bundle of rights: take one of those sticks and you take something that belongs to the owner. The only question then is how much his loss is worth.

Thus, when the Court in 1992 in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council crafted what is effectively a 100 percent rule, whereby owners are entitled to compensation only if regulations restrict uses to a point where all value is lost, it went about the matter backward. It measured the loss to determine whether there was a taking. As a matter of first principle, the Court should have determined first whether there was a taking — whether otherwise legitimate uses were prohibited by the regulation — and only then should it have measured the loss. That addresses the principle of the matter. It then remains simply to measure the loss in value and hence the compensation that is due. In Lucas, since all uses were effectively taken, full compensation was due. The place to start, in short, is with the first stick, not the last dollar. That is especially so since most regulatory takings take only some uses, thus reducing the value of the property by less than its full value.

More generally, the principled approach to takings requires that the Court have a basic understanding of the theory of the matter and a basic grasp of how to resolve conflicting claims about use in a way that respects the equal rights of all. That is hardly a daunting task, as the old common law judges demonstrated, although the application of those principles in particular cases can be complicated, to be sure. But in general, as already noted, the presumption is on the side of active use until some plaintiff demonstrates that such use takes the quiet enjoyment that is his by right (and the defendant’s right as well). At that point the burden shifts to the defendant to justify his use: absent some defense like the prior consent of the plaintiff, the defendant may have to cease his use — or, if his activity is worth it, offer to buy an easement or buy out the plaintiff. Thus, a principled approach respects equal rights of quiet enjoyment — and hence environmental protection. But it also enables active uses to go forward — though not at the expense of private or public rights. Users can be as active as they wish, provided they handle the “externalities” they create in a way that respects the rights of others.

What Congress Should Do

As already noted, the application of these principles is often fact dependent and so is best done by courts. But until our courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, craft a more principled and systematic approach to takings, Congress can assist by drawing at least the broad outlines of such an approach as a guide both for the courts and, more directly, for federal agencies.

In this last connection, however, Congress should recognize that the regulatory takings problem begins with regulation. Doubtless the Founders did not anticipate the modern regulatory state, so they did not specify that regulatory takings are takings too and thus are subject to the Just Compensation Clause. They did not envision our obsession with regulating every human activity and our insistence that such activities — residential, business, what have you — take place only after a grant of official permission. In some areas of business today, we have almost reached the point at which everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That reverses our Founding principle: everything that is not prohibited is permitted — that is, “freely allowed,” not allowed only after obtaining a government permit.

Homeowners, developers, farmers and ranchers, mining and timber companies, firms large and small, profit seeking and not for profit, all have horror stories about regulatory hurdles they confront when they want to do something, particularly with real property. Many of those regulations are legitimate, of course, especially if they aim, preemptively, at securing genuine rights. But many more are aimed at providing some citizens with benefits at the expense of other citizens. They take rights from some to benefit others. At the federal level, such transfers are not likely to find authorization under any enumerated power. But even if constitutionally authorized, they need to be undertaken in conformity with the Takings Clause. Some endangered species, to take a prominent modern example, may indeed be worth saving, even if the authority for doing so belongs to states, and even if the impetus comes from a relatively small group. We should not expect a few property owners to bear all the costs of that undertaking, however. If the public truly wants the habitat for such species left undisturbed, let it buy that habitat or, failing that, pay the costs to the relevant owners of leaving their property unused.

In general, then, Congress should review the many federal regulations affecting private property to determine which are and are not authorized by the Constitution. If not authorized, they should be rescinded, which would end quickly a large body of regulatory takings now in place. But if authorized under some constitutionally enumerated power of Congress, the costs now imposed on particular owners, for benefits conferred on the public generally, should be placed “on budget.” Critics of doing that are often heard to say that if those goods did go on budget, we couldn’t afford them. What they are really saying, of course, is that taxpayers would be unwilling to pay for all the things the critics want. Indeed, the great fear of those who oppose taking a principled approach to regulatory takings is that once the public has to pay for the benefits it now receives “free,” it will demand fewer of them. It should hardly surprise that when people have to pay for something they demand less of it.

It is sheer pretense, of course, to suppose that such benefits are now free, that they are not already being paid for. Isolated owners are paying for them, not the public. As a matter of simple justice, Congress needs to shift the burden to the public that is enjoying the benefits. Once we have an honest, public accounting, we will be in a better position to determine whether the benefits thus produced are worth the costs. Today, we have no idea about that because all the costs are hidden. When regulatory benefits are thus “free,” the demand for them, as we see, is all but infinite.

But in addition to eliminating, reducing, or correcting its own regulatory takings — in addition to getting its own house in order — Congress needs to enact general legislation on the subject of takings that might help to restore respect for property rights and reorient the nation toward its own first principles. To that end, Congress should do the following.

Enact Legislation That Specifies the Constitutional Rights of Property Owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause

As already noted, legislation of the kind recommended here would be unnecessary if the courts were reading and applying the Takings Clause properly. Because they are not, it falls to Congress to step in. Still, there is a certain anomaly in asking Congress to do the job. Under our system, after all, the political branches and the states represent and pursue the interests of the people within the constraints established by the Constitution; and it falls to the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, to ensure that those constraints are respected. To do that, the Court interprets and applies the Constitution as it decides cases brought before it — often against the political branches or a state when an owner seeks either to enjoin a government action on the ground that it violates his rights or to obtain compensation under the Takings Clause, or both. Thus, it is somewhat anomalous to ask or expect Congress to right wrongs that Congress itself may be perpetrating. Is not Congress, in carrying out the public’s will, simply doing its job?

Yes, that is part of its job. But members of Congress swear to uphold the Constitution, which requires them to exercise independent judgment about the meaning of its terms. And in that connection, they need to recognize that we do not live in anything like a pure democracy. The Constitution sets powerful and far‐​reaching restraints on the powers of all three branches of the federal government and, especially since ratification of the Civil War Amendments, on the states as well. Thus, the idea that Congress simply enacts whatever some transient majority of the population wants enacted, leaving it to the courts to determine the constitutionality of its acts, must be resisted. The oath of office is taken on behalf of the people, to be sure, but through and in conformity with the Constitution. Even if the courts fail to secure the liberties of the people, therefore, nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from exercising the duties entailed by the oath of office. In fact, that oath requires Congress to step into the breach.

There is no guarantee, of course, that Congress will do a better job of interpreting the Constitution than the Court has done. In fact, given that Congress is one of the political branches and thus an “interested” party, it could very well do a worse job. That is why the Framers placed “the judicial Power” — entailing, presumably, the power ultimately to say what the law is — with the Court, the nonpolitical branch. But that is no reason for Congress to ignore its responsibility to make its judgment known, especially when the Court is clearly wrong, as it is here. Although nonpolitical in principle, the Court does not operate in a political vacuum — as it demonstrated in 1937, unfortunately, after Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Court‐​packing threat. If the Court can be persuaded to undo the centerpiece of the Constitution, the doctrine of enumerated powers, as it did after that extraordinary and unconscionable political interference, one imagines it can be persuaded by Congress to restore property rights to their proper constitutional status.

Thus, to start, Congress should revisit and rescind or correct legislation that results in uncompensated regulatory takings — and enact no such legislation in future. In addition, however, Congress should enact a more general statute that specifies the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, drawing on common law principles to do so.

Follow the Traditional Common Law in Defining “Private Property,” “Public Use,” and “Just Compensation”

As we saw above, property rights are not protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause alone — that is, by positive constitutional law. Indeed, during the more than two years between the time the Constitution was ratified and took effect and the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was the common law that protected property rights against both private and public invasion. Thus, the Takings Clause simply made explicit, against the new federal government, the guarantees that were already recognized under the common law. (Constitutional protection was implicit during that time, of course, through the doctrine of enumerated powers, for no uncompensated takings were authorized under the new Constitution.) And with the ratification of the Civil War Amendments — the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, in particular — the common law guarantees against the states were constitutionalized as well. Thus, because the Takings Clause takes its inspiration and meaning from the common law of property, it is there that we must look to understand its terms.

“Private property.” The first of those terms is “private property”: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” As every first‐​year law student learns, “private property” means far more than a parcel of real estate. Were that not the case, property law would indeed be an impoverished subject. Instead, the common law reveals the many significations of the concept “property” and the rich variety of arrangements that human imagination and enterprise have made of the basic idea of private ownership. As outlined above, however, those arrangements all come down to three basic ideas — acquisition, exclusive use, and disposal, the three basic rights we have in property, from which more specifically described rights may be derived.

With regard to regulatory takings, however, the crucial thing to notice is that, absent contractual arrangements to the contrary, the right to acquire and hold property entails the right to use it as well. As Madison wrote, people have “a property” in their rights, including in their rights of use. If the right to property did not entail rights of use, it would be an empty promise. People acquire property, after all, only because doing so enables them to use it, which is what gives it its value. Indeed, the fundamental complaint about uncompensated regulatory takings is that, by thus eliminating some or all of the uses owners may make of their property, government makes the title they retain that much less valuable — even worthless in extreme cases. Who would buy property that cannot be used?

The very concept of “property” therefore, entails and denotes all the legitimate uses that can be made of the underlying estate, giving it value. And the uses that are legitimate are those that can be exercised consistent with the rights of others, private and public alike, as defined by the traditional common law. As outlined above, however, the rights of others that limit an owner’s uses depend often on the facts. Thus, legislation can state only the principle of the matter, not its application in specific contexts. Still, the broad outlines should be made clear in any congressional enactment. In particular, the term “private property” should be defined to include all the uses that can be made of property consistent with the common law rights of others. The only grounds that justify restricting uses without compensation are (1) to protect the rights of others; and (2) to provide narrowly defined “public goods,” where owners receive public benefits equivalent to the losses incurred by regulation. By contrast, when a particular owner’s uses are restricted to provide the general public with goods more broadly defined, the resulting loss in value should be compensated.

“Public use.” Turning now from regulatory takings to the full use of eminent domain, here the government condemns the entire property and takes title in order to give the property a “public use” — a military base, for example, or a public school or highway. Unfortunately, governments today too often use eminent domain for much broader purposes, and courts have sanctioned such condemnations by reading “public use” as “public benefit.” That has led to private‐​public collusion against private rights as governments condemn private property for the benefit of other private users, either directly or by delegating their condemnation power to a quasi‐​public or even a private entity. Those are rank abuses of the eminent domain power, amounting often to implicit grants of private eminent domain and to invitations to public graft and corruption. Typically, when a large private entity wants to expand, it goes to the relevant public agency and asks that a nearby property be condemned and title transferred to it, arguing that the expansion will benefit the public through increased jobs, business, taxes, what have you. No longer needing to bargain with the owners of the target properties in an effort to buy them, the entity simply asks or even pays the agency to condemn the properties “for the public good.”

Because eminent domain is a “despotic power,” it should be used rarely and only for genuinely public uses. That means uses that are broadly enjoyed by the public, rather than by some narrow part of the public; and in the case of the federal government, it means a constitutionally authorized use. In defining “public use,” however, facts matter, and sometimes there is no bright line. Nevertheless, certain general considerations can be noted. To begin, if the compensation is just, then no problem arises when title is transferred to the public for a genuine public use such as those mentioned above. Nor is there a problem when title is transferred to a private party — for example, to avoid the holdout situation that might arise with laying cable or telephone lines — provided the subsequent use is open to all on a nondiscriminatory basis, often to be regulated in the public interest. In such cases, were eminent domain available only when the public kept the title, the public would be deprived of the relative efficiencies of private ownership.

Beyond such cases, however, the public use restriction on employing eminent domain looms ever larger. Thus, condemnation for “blight reduction,” often a ruse for transferring title to a private developer, sweeps too broadly. If the “blighted” property constitutes an actual nuisance, it can be condemned under the police power, after all, without transferring title to another owner. A close cousin to the blight reduction rationale is the “economic development” rationale used in the infamous Kelo case and often used for the erection of privately owned sports stadiums; this rationale should never be allowed, whatever the claimed public benefit. Private economic development nearly always generates spillover benefits for the public, but that is no justification for using eminent domain. since private markets provide ample opportunities for obtaining the property needed for development the right way, by voluntary agreement. To avoid abuse and the potential for corruption, therefore, Congress needs to define “public use” rigorously, with reference to titles, use, and control.

“Just compensation.” Finally, Congress should define “just compensation” with an eye to its function: it is a remedy for the wrong of taking someone’s property. That the Constitution implicitly authorizes that wrong does not change the character of the act, of course. As discussed above, the rationale for this despotic power, even when properly used, is problematic. Given that, the least the public can do is make the victim of its use whole. That too will be a fact‐​dependent determination, but Congress should at least make it clear that for compensation to be “just” and hence to make the owner whole, he must receive more than the “market value” of his property, the normal standard today. After all, the simple fact that the owner does not have his property on the market indicates that its value to him is greater than the market price. Moreover, his compensation should reflect the fact that his loss arises not by mere accident, as with torts, but from a deliberate decision by the public to force him to give up his property.

In the case of regulatory takings, however, it should be noted that not every such taking will require compensation for an owner. Minimal losses, for example, may be difficult to prove and not worth the effort. Moreover, some regulatory restrictions may actually enhance the value of property — say, if an entire neighborhood is declared “historic.” Finally, that portion of “just compensation” that concerns market value should reflect value before, and with no anticipation of, regulatory restrictions. Thus, in determining compensation, government should not benefit from reductions in value its regulations bring about. Given the modern penchant for regulation, that may not always be easy. But in general, given the nature of condemnation as a forced taking, any doubt should be resolved to the benefit of the owner forced to give up his property.

If Congress enacts general legislation that outlines the constitutional rights of property owners by following the common law in defining the terms of the Takings Clause, it will abolish, in effect, any real distinction between partial and full takings. Nevertheless, Congress should be explicit about what it is doing.

Treat Property Taken through Regulation the Same As Property Taken through Physical Seizure

The importance of enacting a unified and uniform takings law cannot be overstated. Today, we have one law for “full takings,” “physical seizures,” “condemnations” — call them what you will — and another for “partial takings,” “regulatory seizures,” or “condemnations of uses.” Yet there is overlap, too. Thus, as noted above, the Court has said that if regulations take all uses, compensation is due — perhaps because eliminating all uses comes to the same thing, in effect, as a “physical seizure,” whereas eliminating most but not all uses seems not to come to the same thing.

That appearance is deceptive, of course. In fact, the truth is much simpler — but only if we go about discovering it from first principles. If “property” signifies not only the underlying estate but all legitimate uses that by right can be made of it, then any government action that takes any one of those uses or rights is, by definition, a taking — requiring compensation for any financial losses the owner may suffer as a result. The issue is really no more complicated than that. There is no need to distinguish “full” and “partial” takings: every condemnation, whether full or partial, is a taking. Indeed, the use taken is taken “in full.” Imagine that the property were converted to dollars — 100 dollars, say. Would we say that if the government took all 100 dollars there was a taking, but if it took only 50 of the 100 dollars there was not a taking? Of course not. Yet that is what we say under the Court’s modern regulatory takings doctrine: as one justice put it, “takings law is full of these ‘all‐​or‐​nothing’ situations.”

That confusion must end. Through legislation specifying the rights of property owners, Congress needs to make it clear that compensation is required whenever government eliminates common law property rights and an owner suffers a financial loss as a result — whether the elimination results from regulation or from outright condemnation.

Provide a Single Forum in Which Property Owners May Seek Injunctive Relief and Just Compensation Promptly

The promise of the common law and the Constitution will be realized, however, only through procedures that enable aggrieved parties to press their complaints. Some of the greatest abuses today are taking place because owners are frustrated at every turn in their efforts to reach the merits of their claims. Accordingly, Congress should provide a single forum for owners to press their claims.

In its 1998 term, the Supreme Court decided a takings case that began 17 years earlier, in 1981, when owners applied to a local planning commission for permission to develop their land. After submitting numerous proposals over this period, each rejected, even though each satisfied the commission’s previous recommendation, the owners finally sued, at which point they faced the hurdles the courts put before them. Most owners, of course, cannot afford to go through such a long and expensive process, at the end of which the odds are still against them. But that process confronts property owners across the nation today as they seek to enjoy and then to vindicate their rights. If it were speech or voting or any number of other rights, the path to vindication would be smooth by comparison. But property rights have been relegated to a kind of second‐​class status.

The first problem is the modern permitting regime. We would not stand for speech or religion or most other rights to be enjoyed only by permit. Yet that is what we do with property rights, which places enormous, often arbitrary, power in the hands of federal, state, and local “planners.” Driven by political goals and considerations, planning commissions open the application forum not only to those whose rights might be at stake but to those with interests in the matter. Thus is the common law distinction between rights and interests blurred and eventually lost. Thus is the matter transformed from one of protecting rights to one of deciding whose “interests” should prevail. Thus are property rights effectively politicized. And that is the end of the matter for most owners because that is as far as they can afford to take it.

When an owner does take it further, however, he finds the courts are often no more inclined to hear his complaint than was the planning commission. Federal courts routinely abstain from hearing federal claims brought against state and local governments, requiring owners to litigate their claims in state courts before they can even set foot in a federal court on their federal claims. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that an owner’s claim is not ripe for adjudication unless (1) he obtains a final, definitive agency decision regarding the application of the regulation in question, and (2) he exhausts all available state compensation remedies.

Needless to say, planners, disinclined to approve applications to begin with, treat those standards as invitations to stall until the “problem” goes away. Then, if an owner does spend years and extraordinary expense jumping through those hoops and he gets into federal court at last, he faces the res judicata restriction of the federal Full Faith and Credit Act: the court will say that the case has already been adjudicated by the state courts. Finally, if the claim is against the federal government, the owner faces the so‐​called Tucker Act Shuffle: he cannot get injunctive relief and compensation from the same court but must go to a district court for an injunction and to the Court of Federal Claims for compensation, each waiting upon the other to act.

The 105th and 106th Congresses tried to address those procedural hurdles through several measures, none of which passed both houses. Those or similar measures must be revived and enacted if the unconscionable way we treat owners — who are simply trying to vindicate their constitutional rights — is to be brought to an end. This is not an “intrusion” on state and local governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, properly understood and applied, those governments have no more right to violate the constitutional rights of citizens than the federal government has to intrude on the legitimate powers of state and local governments. Federalism is not a shield for local tyranny. It is a brake on tyranny, whatever its source.


The Founders would be appalled to see what we have done to property rights over the course of the 20th century. One would never know today that their status in the Bill of Rights was equal to that of any other right. The time has come to restore respect for these most basic of rights, the foundation of all of our rights. Indeed, despotic governments have long understood that if you control property, you control the media, the churches, the political process itself. We are not, of course, at that point yet. But if regulations that provide the public with benefits continue to grow, unchecked by the need to compensate those who bear the costs, we will gradually slide to that point — and in the process we will pay an increasingly heavy price for the uncertainty and inefficiency we create. The most important price, however, will be to our system of law and justice. Owners are asking simply that their government obey the law — both the common law and the law of the Constitution. Reduced to its essence, they are saying simply this: stop stealing our property; if you must take it, do it the right way — pay for it. That hardly seems too much to ask.


Posted July 20, 2015 by Ashley Kane

The first car was invented in 1886. The tricycle-like car may have used gasoline and been able to move at a maximum speed of 10mph, but it sure wasn’t covered with car insurance. The first recorded auto insurance policy was sold in 1898 from Travelers Insurance and cost only $12.25. Nowadays, that equals out to around $300, a bit less than the average annual cost of $900 for car insurance today.

Auto insurance is required in nearly every state. It can be pretty crazy to think about when it was first implemented, considering how many years ago cars were invented. Yet, when did it become mandatory?

More: State minimum car insurance amounts

Car Insurance Becomes the Law

Mandatory car insurance is determined on a state-by-state basis, not through the federal government. Connecticut and Massachusetts were the first states to require liability car insurance in 1925, through liability and compulsory coverage in case of auto accidents. Drivers either had to buy coverage or show financial responsibility of at least $10,000 through cash, bonds, or stocks. If they failed to take any of these steps, their driver’s license would be suspended. Impressive forward thinking, right?

Later on, these policies changed into more recognizable forms of car insurance and in 1927, Massachusetts expanded upon the law for required compulsory coverage and changed it into mandated car insurance coverage. Drivers had to show proof of auto liability coverage before registering their vehicle. Soon after, New York and North Carolina had mandated laws in the 1950s and many other states followed with similar regulations through the 1970s.

More: States that don’t require car insurance

First Car Accident

The first car accident occurred in 1896 in New York City when Henry Wells of Springfield, Massachusetts collided with a bicyclist, Evelyn Thomas of New York. Wells spent the night in jail for the accident and Thomas went home with a broken leg. Car insurance could’ve been helpful then. As much as you may loathe paying your premium, there’s reason to be happy about car insurance!


Though it may or may not be true that seat belts have saved lives, and though it is good that they are available, they SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BECOME MANDATORY.  We should NEVER give the GOVERNMENT the right to make any decision for us.  We should fight for our right to self determination.  After all, EVEN GOD allows us FREE CHOICE.  If anyone has a right to make demands on us it is GOD, but HE gave us FREE WILL AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Automotive safety reached a turning point in the 1964 model year. That was the year front-seat lap belts became standard equipment in passenger cars.

Automakers had seen the writing on the wall – or, rather, on the books. Twenty-three states had enacted legislation by 1963 requiring seat belts in front outboard seating positions for all new cars.

‘So many states had adopted the requirement, it would have been silly for car companies to make a distinction between the markets that had required seat belts and the ones that had not,’ said George Johannessen, a consulting engineer with OmniSafe Inc. in Rochester Hills, Mich.

Factory-installed seat belts transformed seat belt manufacturing. Before 1963, most seat belts were produced in small quantities by about a hundred small producers for aftermarket sales. After 1963, the business was taken over by a handful of well-established suppliers, said Johannessen, who wrote a historical report on seat belts for the SAE in 1984.

The occupant restraint business has evolved into a $4 billion a year industry today, with eight manufacturers of complete restraint systems and about 40 producers of components, reported the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council.

Seat belts were first used in 1885 to prevent ejection from horse-drawn carriages. The restraints were used later on airplanes and race cars.

Automotive safety belts became standard equipment in rear outboard seats in 1967. In 1968, the federal government required seat belts in all forward-facing seats and ordered that shoulder straps be installed in front outboard seats.

First, there were no specifications for making the restraints for many years. SAE introduced some specifications in 1955. Manufacturers of occupant restraints formed the American Seat Belt Council in 1961 to establish uniform production and quality standards.

Some of the systems marketed by small producers were unsafe, said Volvo engineer Nils Bohlin in a taped interview before seat belt standards were introduced. Bohlin invented the one-piece, three-point lap/shoulder belt in 1958. The 1959 Volvo was the first car to be fitted with the three-point lap/shoulder belt as standard equipment.

‘Some (early restraint systems) were made out of thin webbing or buckles that were substandard,’ said Chuck Pulley, executive director of the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council, originally the American Seat Belt Council.

Second, automakers also assumed that safety doesn’t sell cars. Ford Motor Co. promoted safety features including seat belts in the 1956 model year. Chevrolet emphasized styling and performance in advertising during the same year and outsold Ford by 190,000 cars, nearly three times its 1955 margin.

Only government intervention could prod manufacturers to make the belts standard equipment. Without state and federal requirements, there would be little demand for the restraints.

And only state statutes could induce people to use safety belts. Since the mid-1980s, 48 states have enacted laws that require people to buckle up.

Usage was high when seat belts were an option because they were purchased by consumers who wanted to use them. But usage dropped when the restraints became standard equipment.

Laws that mandate buckling up can increase belt use to more than 80 percent, said Johannessen.

Belt use was just 24.7 percent in Michigan before the state adopted a mandatory seat belt law in 1985. But use has now climbed to 66.1 percent, according to the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.

During the past 10 years, Michigan’s belt law is credited with saving 650 lives, said the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

The evolution of seat belts has not ended. In fact, the simple belt and clasp have gone high-tech. Cleveland-based TRW Inc., the largest manufacturer of restraint systems, offers a few examples of the changes to expect in auto safety:

Pre-tensioners – small devices attached to the seat belt buckle – can sense a crash and tighten the lap and torso belt to maximize protection.

Pre-tensioners are used in Europe and are expected to debut in the United States in 1998.

‘You don’t even realize it happens – just bang, and you feel the belt tightening around you,’ said Jerry Blevins, TRW vice president of engineering program management.

Load limiters in the buckle are meant to prevent bruises or even broken bones caused by the restraint system in severe collisions. The device gives the belt slack when a vehicle occupant is thrown forward and reaches the maximum force of the belt. Load limiters will appear on 1997 models.

Seat-integrated restraints are seat belts that are built into the seat. That makes the belt more comfortable and easier to use.

‘With seat-integrated restraints, no matter what your size or how you have the seat positioned, the seat belt system should always fit comfortably and correctly,’ Blevins said. Seat-integrated restraints were introduced in North America during the 1996 model year.

‘Smart’ restraint systems monitor a vehicle occupant’s weight and height, distance from the airbag and crash severity and adjust the seat belt and airbags to boost protection.

Those systems can disable the passenger-side airbag if there is a rear-facing child seat to prevent injury to a child.

Complete smart restraints are expected to debut in the 2000 model year.

Donna Lawrence Harris is an Automotive News staff reporter.


Then and Now: 25 years of car seat safety

Great strides have been made over the last 25 years in car seat safety. (Monkey Business Images / Monkey Business – Fotolia)
Then and Now: 25 years of car seat safety

Few parents these days would imagine driving without having their infant or toddler buckled in a car seat, but things were much different 25 years ago.

The first child restraint systems were introduced in 1968, and the first child passenger safety law was passed in Tennessee 10 years later.

By 1985, child passenger safety laws were implemented throughout the United States requiring children under a certain age to be restrained in a child car seat, though many laws had exceptions. The first booster seat law, however, was not implemented until 2000, when Washington state and then California implemented laws requiring booster seats for children over 40 pounds.

It was 25 years ago (the 1990 model year) when shoulder belts became required in the rear passenger seats of new cars, which provided much better safety for older children who were suffering from “seatbelt syndrome” as a result of being restrained in a lap belt alone.

But misuse, passenger airbags and incompatibility between child restraints and vehicles led to children not being protected as intended. This sparked the change that has brought us to car seat safety as we know it.

Groups such as SAFE KIDS and SafetyBeltSafe, USA, were formed to help educate parents about car seat safety. By 1995, a Blue Ribbon Panel looked at the compatibility issues between child restraints and vehicles, and introduced ISOFIX anchors (now known as LATCH). However, the full LATCH system (lower anchors and top tether anchor points) wasn’t required in all vehicles until the 2003 model year.

Car seats also have gone through quite a makeover in 25 years.

In the 1970s, when federal safety standards were first set for car seats, the only requirements were that car seats had to be seatbelted in the car and the child harnessed in the seat; no crash testing was included in certification.

In the early 1980s, crash testing for car seats became required and car seat manufacturers started making car seats sturdier and more protective.

Most harnessed car seats started with a three-point system where a V-shaped strap hooked into the crotch strap, with no hip straps or chest clips. Today’s modern 5-point harness systems are much safer because, when used properly, they provide a snug fit which fully restrains the child in the car seat. Combined with either the LATCH system or car seat belt and top tether, they protect children better than seats before.

But proper use remains key; a car seat can only fully protect a child when the car seat is installed in the vehicle properly and the child is properly restrained within the seat.

You can get your car seat installation and fit checked by your local Safe Kids Child Passenger Safety Technician at


I grew up in a family of seven kids, through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.  We were poor and were doing well to have a car. Our family was only involved in one accident in all those years.  We had no seatbelts of course because they were not invented.  We had no car seats for the same reason.  Someone always held the baby, and the rest of us were well able to ride without incident.  

Being a Christian, I believe that GOD is in control and NOTHING happens without his consent.  So, HE is our protection.  A poor family today can barely afford to feed their kids, let alone the expenses connected with a car between the insurance, maintenance, tires, car seats, let alone extras like the internet, maintenance insurance, car washes, etc.  It is insane what it costs to keep a car these days.  

The controllers (corporate heads) keep coming up with new additions/changes to these car seats and increasing the “requirements”  because it brings in income.  Not only from the purchase and maintenance, but it generates money for the cities in fines.   We are so accustomed to their control over our lives we don’t even flinch.  We just grin and bear the burden.

100 Years of Car Seat History in (About) 60 Seconds

Updated: March 17, 2017


Car Seat Requirements To Leave Hospitals With Your Newborn Are Important To Know Ahead Of Time
Whose baby is it?  So, if you can’t afford a car seat that meets their requirements, they can keep your baby?

Transporting your child is something that new parents will become very familiar with. From school car pools, to dance lessons, to soccer practices, to teaching them how to drive for the first time — parents spend a lot of time with their children in a car. But the first step in all of this is transporting their newborn home from the hospital. Before parents even get to the hospital, they will have to have a car seat, because car seat requirements to leave hospitals are simple: have one properly installed before you go home, so your baby can leave safely.

While it may seem like common sense to have a car seat installed, there is a whole new world of things for new parents to learn and remember. And car seats are an entirely new concept for most new parents to get used to, which they will have to use for more several years after their baby is born.

State laws vary — find yours here — but every state requires that all babies to be in a car seat when they leave the hospital and kids should be in a car seat or booster seat until they are around 11 years old, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. As for newborns, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that all infants should ride in a rear-facing car seat or rear-facing convertible car seat only from the moment they leave the hospital until they’re 2 years old.

As What To Expect notes, there are also two types of harnesses you can choose from, but “you’ll want to opt for the 5-point harness since it ensures baby stays the most secure.”

Before a newborn is discharged from the hospital, according to the AAP, parents should be trained on positioning and use of the car seat. And perhaps the most important thing is the installation of the car seat and that the car seat isn’t expired, which typically happens after six years from the date it was manufactured. Indeed, picking the right car seat is a very important step.

View image on Twitter
They keep changing the designs and the requirements so that you have keep buying new ones.  It is NUTS!!

And tell me what little child under two wants to stare at the back of your backseat??

AND WHAT KIDS OVER 5  want or needs to be in a booster seat???  Seriously!!


A new law in Washington could keep kids in booster seats until middle school

A new law in Washington state will keep kids in booster seats longer.

(CNN)Next year, some middle school kids could be rolling up in the carpool line and hopping out of their booster seats.

That’s after Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee signed stricter car seat regulations into law, meaning children shorter than 4 feet 9 inches must sit in a booster seat.
House Bill 1012 says a child must remain in a booster “until the vehicle lap and shoulder seat belts fit properly, typically when the child is between the ages of eight and twelve years of age, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, or must be properly secured with the motor vehicle’s safety belt properly adjusted and fastened around the child’s body.”
Children under 13 years old must sit in the back seat of the vehicle.
For children under 2 years old, they must remain in rear-facing car seats until they reach the height and weight specifications set by the seat manufacturer. Children aged 2 to 4 can be forward-facing in a car seat until they reach the specifications for a booster seat.
This law doesn’t apply to for-hire vehicles, buses or various shuttles.
The new guidelines go into effect January 1, 2020.
SO, since it does not apply to commercial vehicles than it is an arbitrary law.  It has nothing to do with safety.  It has to do with CONTROL!!

New Bill Requires All California School Buses To Have Seat Belts

When I first think about seat belts on a bus, it sounds like a dumb idea. But, that’s little Jenna reflected back on her grade school days. You know, the ones where buses only had seat belts in the first few rows? That might just be an Indiana thing, but California school buses will ALL have shoulder and lap belts by 2035. And older Jenna thinks this is a good idea.

According to Sac Bee, Governor Jerry Brown just singed AB 1798 this week. The bill requires all school buses in California to have shoulder and lap belts by 2035.I mean, we’re required to wear them in our cars, why wouldn’t we want our kids to wear them on a giant vehicle? Plus, buses are way more likely to roll. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be strapped in at all times.

Many school buses already have seat belts, but older ones manufactured after 1999 weren’t required to. If they are still in operation in 2035, they will need to be retrofitted with them, though. Because buses have a general lifespan of 30 years, many will already be out of service by this date. So, the good news is, this new bill won’t cost a lot.

What do you think about seatbelts on California school buses?


Did you know that it was not that long ago that people were allowed to drink alcoholic beverages while driving???  No kidding when I moved to Texas in the early 1980’s you could see people driving down the street with a drink in their hands.   There were drive in liquor stores where you could freshen your cup or grab another six pack. 

ALL these changes, all these intrusions on our rights have occurred in our very recent history.  Now, I am certainly not a proponent of drinking and driving.  In fact, I do not understand people who drink excessively at all.  But, I am a firm believer in our rights to make our own choices. 

Allowed in 26 States : Drinking and Driving: a Legal Mix


In this city of clogged highways, the evening drive from office to home can be as much as two beers long.

A trip to Dallas could easily be a six-packer, necessitating an ice chest to keep the road beers chilled for the five-hour drive.

In Texas, drinking and driving is as common as the 7-Eleven store. The state has no law against quaffing a Lone Star or sipping on a Scotch and soda while cruising down the interstate. Often, trips here begin at the package store.

While that may seem odd indeed to residents of California, where such practices have been banned since 1961, drinking and driving is legal in 26 states, according to statistics provided by the National Safety Council. Drivers and passengers can drink as they roll down the road in Maine and Mississippi, Vermont and Wyoming, so long as they are not legally drunk.

3,700 Miles of Drinking

If a traveler were driving from Key West, Fla., to the Idaho-Canadian border, he could pick a reasonably direct route that would allow him to drink non-stop for 3,700 miles. (In Idaho, he would have to switch to 3.2 beer because drinking more potent brews or hard liquor is not allowed.)

In the state of Maryland, the laws are written in such a way that drinking in a parked car is illegal, but drinking while driving is not.

This license to drink behind the wheel exists at a time when the national consciousness is focused on drunk driving and a number of states are passing tougher laws that severely penalize inebriated motorists.

Massachusetts has outlawed happy hours in bars, the practice of selling drinks at reduced prices. In New Jersey, party hosts can be held responsible for guests who drive drunk when they leave. But bans against drinking while driving, commonly known as open container laws because they outlaw such containers in vehicles, have so far escaped much public notice.

Group Seeks Laws

However, that may begin to change soon. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, now a major nationwide lobbying force, has made the passage of open container laws one of its primary goals. Despite that goal, MADD has no statistics comparing drunk driving deaths in states that have open container laws to those that do not. Neither does the National Safety Council.

Clay Hall, chief of program development for the office of alcohol countermeasures at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said such a study is nearly impossible because of a number of variables–such as different laws, penalties and enforcement. However, he did say that an open container law “does increase awareness in the public’s mind and probably would give an officer probable cause if he saw someone swigging a can of beer” to pull the driver over.

Ann Seymour, the assistant to the president of MADD, was harsher in her description of drinking and driving.

“There’s nothing worse than driving down the road and seeing someone swigging a can of beer,” she said. “It’s like having a weapon behind the wheel. But it (an open container law) is one of the most difficult things to get passed because people see it as a right. It has become a way of life for them.”

Only two states, Iowa and South Carolina, have passed open container laws within the last year. MADD and the National Safety Council, which keeps track of drinking laws throughout the country, say that many states are like Texas, where there is an unwillingness to legislate against drinking and driving.

Several years ago, a South African journalist attended a press conference by Col. Jim Adams of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The recently arrived journalist, having noticed a number of persons drinking beer as they drove through the streets of Houston, asked Adams if there should not be a law against the practice.

Adams’ reply was that Texans did not like that kind of new law.

Joe Darnall, an official with the Texas Alcohol Beverage Control Board, put it another way: “Down in this part of the country, people don’t like too much regulation. It was the same way when I came to Texas 30 years ago. It’s been like that forever.

“It’s kind of hard to pinpoint support for it (drinking and driving) on a regional basis,” he said. But areas of support “can be out in West Texas or in the Houston metroplex where people sometimes have an hour’s commute.”

Little Hope for Bills

A bill introduced in the last session of the Texas Legislature, calling for establishment of an open container law, died in committee. Similar bills have again been introduced in both the Texas House and Senate this year, but the sponsors have little hope that their measures will pass. They say Texas will probably raise the drinking age to 21, but only because, under new federal law, not doing so would threaten the flow of federal highway funds into state coffers.

State Rep. Gary Thompson, a Democrat from Abilene, is one of those who will push for legislation to make open containers in vehicles illegal during the legislative session, which began last week. He also has introduced a bill that would copy Massachusetts’ law outlawing happy hours. But he said Texans’ unwillingness to change their habits, along with liquor lobby pressure, will probably prevent passage.

“I’ve always thought it was ridiculous to allow people to drink and drive at the same time,” he said. Speaking about legislation to ban open containers in vehicles, he said: “Of all the liquor laws I can think of, this is the most easily defended.”

‘Frontier Mentality’

“But it is sacrosanct in Texas because of the frontier mentality that is so much a part of the state. I think it derives from sportsmen who like tooling around in their pickups, or Joe Six-Pack drinking a beer on the way home from work. Those who are against the law will just ask why you are punishing Joe Six-Pack when he’s not doing anybody any harm by having a beer on the way home.”

State Sen. Bill Sarpalius of Amarillo, who will sponsor the legislation in the upper house, said he finds it somewhat absurd that Texas–a state with tough laws against drunk driving–nevertheless allows persons to drink and drive.

“I just don’t believe an automobile is the place to be drinking,” he said. “At home, that’s fine. Texas has always been a state where it was more socially accepted to drink, anywhere you wanted to–in a car or walking down the street. It’s something that was always accepted in Texas, but the times have changed.”

Behind the Scenes

Thompson said he believes that the Texas liquor industry will probably take a mild stance publicly on the open container bill while working against it behind the scenes. Officials of both the Texas Licensed Beverage Distributors and the Texas Wholesale Beer Distributors declined to return repeated telephone calls regarding the legislation. Spokesmen for the nationwide Distilled Spirits Council and the U.S. Brewers Assn. said that neither group had an official policy regarding open container laws.

Rick Thornburg, vice president for government relations of the National Beer Wholesalers Assn., offered the only firm statement on policy. He said that if Congress tried to pass national legislation regarding open containers, or for that matter raising the legal drinking age, his group would oppose it on the basis that such laws are not the prerogative of the federal government.

Open Containers Laws- Illegal in Every State

It’s against the Open Container Law to have opened alcohol in a vehicle, whether you’re driving, parked, or riding as a passenger.

You know that drinking and driving is illegal, especially if you’re literally doing those things at the same time. Yes, you’re in big trouble if you decide to beer-and-steer in any of the 50 states. DWI penalties will increase for impaired drivers who have open containers in the motor vehicle, but the Open Container Law pertains to much more than this obviously illegal activity.

The Open Container Law

This law states that you cannot have any open containers of alcohol in your vehicle. If you do, it’s likely you’ll get a container violation. Intoxicating liquor isn’t the only no-no. This law means no liquor, beer, or wine. It doesn’t even matter whether your vehicle is moving or parked somewhere!

An alcoholic beverage cannot be in any seating area of the vehicle, meaning the laws also prohibit passenger’s drinks from being open in the motor vehicle. (The one exception is that passengers in a limousine can possess and consume alcoholic beverages in the passenger areas of the vehicle.)

What is an open container?

The word “open” applies to not only open receptacles containing alcohol, but to any container that has been previously opened or has a broken seal. Obviously, a Solo cup with beer sloshing around in it is illegal (and quite risky for your car upholstery). But re-sealed containers are still considered open containers by the law, so put down the plastic wrap. It won’t suffice to shove a cork back into a wine bottle.

You also can’t put alcohol in a container that would normally be occupied by another liquid in order to conceal the contents. You’re not fooling anyone. Throw away open alcohol containers on the premises instead of bringing them in your vehicle, or do the classy thing and leave remaining alcohol and beverage containers with the party host.

Penalties for Violating the Open Container Law

Punishments for violating the Open Container law and having an unsealed alcohol bottle in your possession include jail time, fines, and community service. It’s not worth it! Don’t get into your vehicle with any type of alcohol container with a broken seal, and don’t let a passenger do it either.

And remember, an open container can make a DUI charge even worse for a driver: vehicle impoundment, extended jail time, and loss of auto insurance. Never ever drink and drive. It’s the law. Never bring open containers from alcoholic beverages in your car. It’s also the law.

How to Transport Alcohol Legally

Let’s start with a really important disclaimer. If you’re under the age of 21 years old, you should not be in possession of ANY alcoholic beverages, open or not. If you’ve been drinking at all, you shouldn’t be transporting anything or anyone in a car. Period. Not on back roads, or public highways, or anywhere.

If you’re 21 or older, learn the best way to get from A to B when you want to BYOB. Keep unopened alcoholic beverages in the trunk! Even if the bottles or cans are factory sealed, the trunk is a better place for alcohol than just setting it on the floor of the passenger side or in the back seat. No trunk? If you drive a pickup truck, feel free to keep alcohol in the bed of the truck as long as it’s at least two feet away from the cab’s back windows (where passengers could potentially reach it). This is the best way to avoid getting a container charge for breaking open container laws. Have fun, and remember: no alcohol for the designated driver! Drinking and driving is dangerous and not what an Aceable licensee would do.


Now they are making it illegal to SMOKE in your own car.  Again, I am not a fan of smoking.  I used to smoke years and years ago.  I do understand addiction.  I also understand freedom in CHRIST who set me free.  I AM a firm believer in FREEDOM.  FREEDOM TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES.

The more GOVERNMENT is allowed to meddle in our lives, the more they want to control, and the more control they demand!


Virginia Law and Smoking in Your Car


Smoking in your car is never a good idea. In addition to the health effects, lighting a cigarette could turn you into a distracted driver.[1] And now there’s one more reason not to smoke in your car. As of July 1, 2016, in Virginia, smoking in your car while a child is present could result in a $100 fine.It’s all because of a new law that reads:“It is unlawful for a person to smoke in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or at rest, when a minor under the age of eight is present in the motor vehicle. A violation of this section is punishable by a civil penalty of $100 . . .”[2]The law bans lighting and holding, as well as inhaling and exhaling smoke from pipes, cigars or cigarettes of any kind or any other lighted smoking equipment.[3] This is a secondary offense, meaning a police officer could not pull a person over simply because he or she saw the person smoking with a child in the car.  However, if “the officer issuing such citation has cause to stop or arrest the driver of such motor vehicle for the violation” of a primary offense, the officer may also issue a ticket for smoking with a child in the car.[4] Primary offenses can include speeding, running a stop sign, or texting while driving.[5]But the possibility of a $100 ticket should not be the only reason a person does not smoke with children in the car.The health effects of secondhand smoke on children are well known. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they include:

  • More frequent and more severe asthma attacks
  • Respiratory infections
  • Ear infections
  • Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)[6]

Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are involuntarily inhaling more than 250 toxic or carcinogenic chemicals.[7] And the American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that “exposure during childhood to environmental tobacco smoke may also be associated with development of cancer during adulthood.”[8]

Smoking around children is harmful to their health and yours. If you or a loved one would like to quit smoking, go to for tips and support.

About The Author: Amy Whitelaw is a personal injury attorney in the Richmond, Virginia office of Allen & Allen. Amy prides herself in providing the best client service and communication so that her clients always remain well-informed. She focuses her practice exclusively on personal injury cases including motorcycle accidentscar accidentstruck accidents and wrongful death.

The rules about smoking in cars | The AA

The Children and Families Act 2015 made smoking in cars with children an offence. The law makes it clear that it’s illegal to: Smoke in a private vehicle with someone under age 18 present Fail to prevent smoking in a private vehicle with someone under age 18 present
Smoking bans in private vehicles
Smoking bans in private vehicles are enacted to protect passengers from secondhand smoke and to increase road traffic safety, e.g. by preventing the driver from being distracted by the act of smoking. Smoking bans in private vehicles are less common than bans extended to public transport or vehicles used during work, like trucks or police cars.

 U.s. Prohibitions on Smoking in Cars With Children U.S. Prohibitions on Smoking in Cars with Children p_3 State Statute Year Enacted/ Amended Effective Date Offense Type Applicable Age; Key Components Penalty/Fine Oregon Act of June 11, 2013, ch. 361, § 2, 2013 Or. Laws, ch. 361, page 1. Act of May 26, 2015, ch. 158 § 12, 2015 Or. Laws, ch. 158 § 12, page 3 (to be


If you are trying to make yourself feel better by telling yourself that I am just a wacko looking at things in the extreme, research for yourself.  If what I have presented here is not enough… dig it out for yourself.

LISTEN to what they are saying to you.  READ their news blurbs with discerning eyes.  They come right out and declare to you what they are doing.   WAKE UP

Why 95 Percent of Your Driving Won’t Be in Your Own Car by 2030

A new report says 95 percent of us will be riding in driverless, shared electric cars by 2030.
Visitors look at a self-driving car by Google displayed at the Viva Technology event in Paris

Visitors look at a self-driving car by Google displayed at the Viva Technology event in Paris, France, July 1, 2016. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

When Google’s self-driving program spin-off, Waymo, began offering to let Phoenix-area families try out its vehicle service last month, it touched off what a new study is calling “a historic revolution in transportation.”

While the number of Americans using all forms of ride-sharing — autonomous or otherwise — is currently quite small, RethinkX, an independent think tank that looks at the impact of new technology, says it will grow rapidly. By 2030, it predicts in its new report, 95 percent of the miles traveled in the U.S. will be in self-driving, shared electric vehicles.

JAN. 5, 201701:20

That’s a far more rapid transition than others have been predicting. A recent report by the Boston Consulting Group delivered a shock to many by forecasting 25 percent of U.S. miles would be driven in shared, driverless, electric vehicles by 2030. But “it’s time to adjust our thinking,” said Tony Seba, a co-author of the RethinkX study, “Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030: The Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the ICE Vehicle and Oil Industries.”

“We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruptions of transportation in history,” said Seba, RethinkX co-founder. “But there is nothing magical about it. This is driven by the economics.”

As the Electric Car Rises, Car Ownership Dies

Apparently, a lot of folks agree on the economic transformation reshaping the auto industry. There has been explosive growth in investments in alternative powertrain technology, as well as autonomous and fully driverless vehicle systems. And over the last couple of years, Uber and Lyft have become Wall Street darlings, while new ride- and car-sharing competitors are rapidly popping up.

Traditional automotive manufacturers are struggling to retain their dominance, but it isn’t easy. Tesla may have hit a speedbump this week when it reported its first-quarter earnings — but investors have given it a market capitalization larger than either General Motors or Ford. And a slew of new players are entering the battery-car segment, such as Faraday Future and Lucid.

In the autonomous vehicle space, Samsung just received a permit to test its technology on public roads in South Korea, and Apple and even Amazon are looking at their options, though Waymo has a huge lead having clocked over 2 million miles of testing its self-driving vehicles on public roads over the last eight years.

As for Uber and Lyft, they dominate ride-sharing, though they still represent only a small share of the miles Americans travel. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has predicted that will change with the arrival of fully driverless vehicles that would slash the cost of using his service. Lyft, meanwhile, has anticipated that individual vehicle ownership will all but vanish in urban centers in the coming decade.

The RethinkX study suggests the two companies are on the right track and, if anything, may not be ambitious enough.

While the 95 percent forecast is likely to be challenged, even established automakers are becoming comfortable with the idea that the transportation world is in that “historic revolution.”

APRIL 27, 201600:27

Race to the Finish Line

Ford CEO Mark Fields now refers to the century-old firm as a “mobility company,” rather than an automotive manufacturer. Ford is investing in a variety of alternative transportation ventures, and a recent study by Navigant Research actually put it in the lead, declaring Ford’s autonomous vehicle program the industry’s most advanced. The maker last year declared it will have its first fully driverless vehicle in production in 2021 — and it will target sharing services and delivery fleets, rather than individual buyers.

General Motors is considered another leader in autonomous research. It recently launched the world’s first mainstream, long-range EV, the Chevrolet Bolt. And it has tied up with Lyft while this week announcing it is expanding its own car-sharing service, Maven.

Other traditional automakers hoping to ride the tsunami of change including Nissan, the world’s largest seller of electric vehicles; plus Volkswagen and Toyota.

Whether they will be able to fend off the new entrants, such as Waymo, Apple, and Samsung, is far from certain — though at least some of these tech firms expect to partner with existing manufacturers rather than build cars themselves.

For the Phoenix project, Waymo will take delivery and modify 500 new Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivans — on top of 100 it ordered last year.

The RethinkX study doesn’t necessarily predict who will come out on top, but what it underscores is the fact that who drives and what they drive — or ride — in is set to dramatically change in barely a dozen more years.


First published at 18:15 UTC on February 1st, 2021.

While more than 1 billion tonnes of food are still wasted every year and agriculture remains a major driver of water use, climate change and nature loss, a nature-positive economy could create 395 million new jobs by 2030. With the Biodiversity COP15 and the UN Food Systems Summit scheduled for 2021, this Leadership Panel examines how to scale inclusive action to transform food systems, improve farmer livelihoods and restore nature.



IT DOES NOT STOP THERE FOLKS.  YOUR LIFE WILL NO LONGER BELONG TO YOU.  The NWO is about TOLAL CONTROL of every aspect of your life… even your body, mind and spirit!!!


Biden Regime’s Door-To-Door Vax “Injection Program” Tells …

Biden Regime’s Door-To-Door Vax “Injection Program” Tells Officials To Ignore Law, Hide Side Effects July 14, 2021 / No Comments Vaccine officials going door-to-door to inject Americans have been told to break laws and hide the deadly side effects of the experimental vaccine.


Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R- NC) said on Friday that the Biden administration talking about door-to-door vaccine outreach means they could come for people’s guns and Bibles too.a man wearing a suit and tie© Provided by MediaitePresident Joe Biden talked this week about the need to get more people vaccinated. “Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes, door to door — literally knocking on doors — to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus.”Public health experts have warned about the spread of the Delta variant and emphasized the need for the millions of unvaccinated Americans to get their shot.Cawthorn spoke with Right Side Broadcasting Network on Friday at CPAC 2021 in Dallas and said this:

Now they’re starting to talk about going door-to-door to be able to take vaccines to the people. Think about the mechanisms they would have to build to be able to actually execute that massive of a thing. And then think about what those mechanisms could be used for. They could then go door-to-door and take your guns, they could go door-to-door and take your Bibles.

A number of Republicans have decried the statement from the White House on door-to-door outreach to encourage more people to get the vaccine to protect them from the coronavirus, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who decried “medical brown shirts” weeks after apologizing for making Holocaust comparisons.

h/t Ron Filipkowski

The post Madison Cawthorn Says Biden Comments on Door-to-Door Vaccine Outreach Means They Could Come to ‘Take Your Guns’ and Bibles first appeared on Mediaite.



Biden & DNC want to censor text messages to stop ‘misinformation’ – ‘if it saves just one life’

Who needs privacy?

By Helen Buyniski | RT | July 14, 2021

The White House is tying itself in knots to silence anyone questioning the mainstream Covid-19 narrative, and, whatever you think of vaccines, its latest plans are only the first step toward making thoughtcrime a reality.

The US government is done playing “good cop” with regard to the “vaccine hesitant.” The Biden administration, which recently opted to send ‘volunteer’ vaccinators door to door in what may be the most ill-thought-out public health campaign in US history, doesn’t just want to meddle with your body anymore – its plans to control “misinformation” you may send by SMS text message indicate it’s intent on controlling your mind as well.

White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is leading the crusade, blaming “Fox News or whomever” for crafting the vision of “a bunch of federal workers knocking on your door, telling you you’ve got to do something that you don’t want to do.” Fauci clarified that it wasn’t government officials, but “trusted messengers who are part of the community”. Noticeably, he didn’t address the “doing something you don’t want to do” part – a telling oversight in the minds of those who are convinced the campaign is indeed a coercive one and those who’ve been paying closer attention to who makes up the door-to-door vax packs.

While Politico insisted on Monday that these teams talked up by Biden and Psaki were merely delivering information on vaccination, not administering the jabs, a Tuesday report from a local TV network in Mecklenburg, North Carolina showed precisely the opposite, proudly announcing one man was so excited by the visit he chose to get the shot right then and there on his porch.

Who are you going to believe, then, America? The TV or your lying eyes?

And this campaign is far from a single-pronged strategy. According to Politico, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and “Biden-allied groups” – whatever that last phrase means – have plans to “engage fact-checkers more aggressively” and “work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The White House plans to interfere with people’s ability to send text messages if it doesn’t like what they say. This is not a question of whether one supports or rejects the Covid-19 vaccine campaign, or what one thinks about vaccines at all; this is the curtain being yanked back on the police state the US has long insisted it isn’t (but that all its enemies are). It’s Washington rearing up with bared teeth, concealing its scabrous pelt in a lab coat, and hoping you don’t see the claws grasping the syringe. The US gave up its moral authority regarding freedom of the press somewhere between the Pentagon Papers and the revelations of Operation Mockingbird, but interfering with the content of individual text messages sent between innocent civilians brings the nation much deeper into the thickets of fascism than it has ever dared venture before, to a spot where it seems intent on setting up shop permanently.

Shots in the Hood ‘Strike Force’

Ultimately, the issue goes far beyond the pandemic to how much power Americans are willing to cede to a government that – based on statistics, at least – less than a quarter actually supported in the last election, a result framed as an accomplishment that speaks more to apathy. This is why the narrative managers don’t replace Fauci. When they really need credibility, they deputize trusted community members – a tactic they’ve been quite open about using, recently to middling success in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, where a local barber shop participated in Biden’s “Shots at the Shops” campaign to flood some of the city’s most dangerous, crime-plagued black neighborhoods with what were portrayed as clever, street-smart vaccination teams eager to save the lives of their fellow man.

That way, when whatever health campaign (or other government initiative) those barber shops (or other incursion on constitutional freedoms) have tied their credibility to suffers a hit – and the Englewood appearance wasn’t anything to write home about – it’s the trusted local institution that takes the blame. The overarching public-private partnership – that Faustian (Faucian?) pact between business and government – is one of the defining elements of fascism. But it’s become so common and normalized under Biden’s Covid-19 “Build Back Better” project that the average American thinks nothing about seeing all their local businesses getting into bed with the private equity firms such as BlackRock and Blackstone that have quietly bought up their neighborhoods during the pandemic – or as far back as the 2008 crash. After all, these groups know enough to shroud themselves in rainbows and climate-babble, and that’s all most people care about these days when vetting who they will allow to own them.

Search and Stick

More importantly, if White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki can look Americans in the eye and claim no one’s being vaccinated on the search-and-inoculate missions in North Carolina, while the next TV channel shows exactly that happening, a seed of cognitive dissonance is successfully sown that allows a person to believe two mutually exclusive “truths.” Even if we know at some basic level the government is lying to us, we don’t want to believe our trusted neighborhood fixtures are also doing so. The Biden administration’s recently declared scorched-earth campaign thus has the potential to sabotage trust in as many ways as there are trusting relationships in a community, and it doesn’t care what happens to those people as long as it gets control of the American mind at the end of the road. Families might be shredded and homes torn apart over the FBI’s recent announcement that we must snitch on our fellow man lest ill-defined “extremism” take root somewhere, but Blackstone and Vanguard turned record profits this year, and that’s what matters.

Americans seem to believe the Covid-19 pandemic is winding down – a Gallup poll early last month suggested nearly three in five Americans believe their lives are either “somewhat” or “completely” back to normal after 18 months of being put through their Pavlovian paces in what the World Economic Forum admits was the world’s largest-ever psychological experiment. But the narrative managers have only begun declaring war – not on the virus, or even so much on how we think about it, but how we think about them.

Former George W. Bush administration official John Bridgeland warned Politico on Tuesday that “lies” (not necessarily about vaccines, but that create “communities already wary of the vaccines”) are “potentially a death sentence.” Now what kind of government official would he be if he allowed some family who just wanted to be left alone with their “death sentence” to go back to their dinner? Not a very effective one, that’s for sure! Bridgeland didn’t say what kind of “lies” made people more susceptible to death by Covid-19, but no doubt he’d like to spend a long time digging through your phone to make sure you’re not harboring any.

Humanity must be primed for the next crisis, after all. Whether that’s a “climate lockdown” or a fake alien invasion, we’re being primed for another metaphysical gut punch meant to turn us against ourselves. At that point, resistance will no longer be optional, it will be a matter of survival – but your phone won’t let you text that to anybody.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram


If you don’t think that their intent is to rob you of your freedom…all freedom including your home and your vehicles, just keep watching the headlines.   Especially watch what is happening in CHINA.  CHINA is the UN’s model for the future.   What happens in China is coming soon to your neighborhood.


Jul 23, 2021

As usual, the official Chinese media claimed the flooding as a natural disaster and that the government was actively assisting the public. The report said that the extreme rainfall exceeded the local rainfall record set in August 1975. But, is it really just a natural disaster? #zhengzouflood#CentralChinaflood#Chinaextremeweather

See Below


Zhengzhou Severe Flood: Secretly dam discharge, two dams collapsed, extreme rainfall and more