New North Carolina Drivers License Has Emblem for NORTH AMERICANUNION -This is treason!!!

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
>
>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
>>> mode of doing so.
>
>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
>>
>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
>> tempting as a control mechanism.
>
> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
> to it.

<cue instrument="violins">

> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
> soviets won.

My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if you'd
been thrown in the gulag!

</cue>

In article >, Deadrat wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
>>>> mode of doing so.
>>
>>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
>>>
>>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
>>> tempting as a control mechanism.
>>
>> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
>> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
>> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
>> to it.
>
><cue instrument="violins">
>
>> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
>> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
>> soviets won.
>
> My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if you'd
> been thrown in the gulag!
>
></cue>

The 'it could be worse' excuse. Well it could be worse, they could be
pulling drivers out of their cars and line up against a brick wall and
execute them with their side arms. It can *ALWAYS* be worse. Just because
it could be worse is no excuse.

Unlike you, I remember the days when we were told we had to fight the
cold war against the soviets so we *wouldn't* have checkpoints. There was
even a line in a popular movie from a soviet navy officer who was
defecting that he would travel in mobil home from state to state without
papers, without being stopped at checkpoints. Well not any more.

I can't be the only one who remembers that the USA used to be the good
guys because there wasn't crap like papers and checkpoints here.

the heekster wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:29:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > wrote:
>
>> the heekster > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:20:08 -0400, "Topp@Work" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote
>> in
>>>> message oups.com...
>>>>> On Sep 6, 10:52 am, Bert Hyman > wrote:
>>>>>> (Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS) wrote
>>>> :
>>>>>>> "The hologram looks exactly [like] the map of North America that
>> is
>>>>>>> used as the background for the Security and Prosperity
>> Partnership
>>>>>>> of North America logo on the SPP website,"
>>>>>> I'd bet that most maps of North America look pretty much alike.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the point, loony. The map should be just NC or just
>>>>> america. I don't want muds on my drivers license.
>>>> You have no "Right" to have a Drivers License....
>>>> It's not in the Constitution, so it's a gift from the State.
>>>> Be glad you get anything
>>>>
>>> You might want to peruse that pesky 9th amendment.
>> Who issued your state drivers license? It was done under state police
>> powers.
>
> A small red fish. It was not done under "state police powers". It
> was done as prescribed by a law passed by the legislature.
>

Just for general info:

Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, under the word "POLICE" states:
"The police of a state, in a comprehensive sense, embraces its whole
system of internal regulation, by which the state seeks not only to
preserve the public order and to prevent offenses against the state, but
also to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those
rules of good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to
prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to each the uninterrupted
enjoyment of his own, so far as is reasonably consistent with the like
enjoyment of rights by others. Cooley, Const Lim. *572"

Under "POLICE POWER", Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, states: The
power vested in a state to establish laws and ordinances for the
regulation and enforcement of its /police/.

>> The feds had little to do with it.
>
> I didn't say that they did. The 9th says that the people retain all
> rights not specifically enumerated. Likewise for state governments,
> regardless of whether there is such a disclaimer in their
> constitutions. Why? Because all governments derive their just powers
> from the consent of the governed.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
> among Men,
>
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>
> — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
> to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>
> One more time: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed..."
>
> State police powers I have heard of, but usually it is associated with
> countries like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, North
> Korea, and Vietnam.
>
> Applying the term to the US seems to me like a relatively recent
> action.
>

The oldest dictionary I have access to is from 1755, is that "recent"?

Dr. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, defines
"POLICE" as #2, The internal regulation and government of a Kingdom or
State.

> I don't like it.

In article >,
the heekster > wrote:
>
> State police powers I have heard of, but usually it is associated with
> countries like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, North
> Korea, and Vietnam.
>
> Applying the term to the US seems to me like a relatively recent
> action.
>
> I don't like it.

The term has been applied since the Constitution was ratified. Do you
think there should be laws against crimes like murder and kidnapping?

Do you think that crimes should be investigated and criminals should be
arrested?

All of these are done by the government pursuant to the exercise of the
state police power.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Deadrat wrote:
> > (Brent P) wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
> >>>> mode of doing so.
> >>
> >>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
> >>>
> >>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
> >>> tempting as a control mechanism.
> >>
> >> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
> >> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
> >> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
> >> to it.
> >
> ><cue instrument="violins">
> >
> >> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
> >> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
> >> soviets won.
> >
> > My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if you'd
> > been thrown in the gulag!
> >
> ></cue>
>
> The 'it could be worse' excuse.

No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no sense of
perspective" excuse.

In article >, Larry wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article >, Deadrat wrote:
>> > (Brent P) wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
>> >>>> mode of doing so.
>> >>
>> >>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
>> >>> tempting as a control mechanism.
>> >>
>> >> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
>> >> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
>> >> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
>> >> to it.
>> >
>> ><cue instrument="violins">
>> >
>> >> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
>> >> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
>> >> soviets won.
>> >
>> > My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if you'd
>> > been thrown in the gulag!
>> >
>> ></cue>
>>
>> The 'it could be worse' excuse.
>
> No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no sense of
> perspective" excuse.

Bull****. I am sick and tired of being told I should accept one intrusion
of the government into my life after another because 'it could be worse'.
Don't you see that is how it is getting worse year after year? One bit at
time. It's done step by step so people go 'it could be worse', shrug
their shoulders and ridicule those who don't accept the latest step.

You're being played for suckers. Just keep shrugging your shoulders,
accepting having your papers checked at every turn, the searches, the
police state mechanisms and it _WILL BE_ worse.

I remember an america without checkpoints. Why don't you?

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Larry
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Deadrat
> >> wrote:
> >> > (Brent P) wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
> >> >>>> mode of doing so.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
> >> >>> tempting as a control mechanism.
> >> >>
> >> >> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
> >> >> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
> >> >> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
> >> >> to it.
> >> >
> >> ><cue instrument="violins">
> >> >
> >> >> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
> >> >> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
> >> >> soviets won.
> >> >
> >> > My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if
> >> > you'd
> >> > been thrown in the gulag!
> >> >
> >> ></cue>
> >>
> >> The 'it could be worse' excuse.
> >
> > No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no sense of
> > perspective" excuse.
>
> Bull****. I am sick and tired of being told I should accept one intrusion
> of the government into my life after another because 'it could be worse'.

Accept it (or reject it) for the legitimate reasons offered for it.

Don't accept it because it could be worse. But recognize that it could
be worse, and not every intrusion is of the same magnitude.

In article >, Larry wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article >, Larry
>> wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > (Brent P) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >, Deadrat
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > (Brent P) wrote in
>> >> > :
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
>> >> >>>> mode of doing so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
>> >> >>> tempting as a control mechanism.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
>> >> >> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
>> >> >> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's lives
>> >> >> to it.
>> >> >
>> >> ><cue instrument="violins">
>> >> >
>> >> >> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
>> >> >> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
>> >> >> soviets won.
>> >> >
>> >> > My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if
>> >> > you'd
>> >> > been thrown in the gulag!
>> >> >
>> >> ></cue>
>> >>
>> >> The 'it could be worse' excuse.
>> >
>> > No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no sense of
>> > perspective" excuse.
>>
>> Bull****. I am sick and tired of being told I should accept one intrusion
>> of the government into my life after another because 'it could be worse'.
>
> Accept it (or reject it) for the legitimate reasons offered for it.

There are no legitimate reasons for a checkpoint in a free society. The
checkpoint exists for the state and the minions that carry it out. It
doesn't make us 'safer', all it does it make it easier for us to be
victimized by government.

> Don't accept it because it could be worse. But recognize that it could
> be worse, and not every intrusion is of the same magnitude.

Oh, I see... you want to construct a strawman. I never said things were
of the same magnitude. that's your creation there buddy.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Larry
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Larry
> >> wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article >, Deadrat
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > (Brent P) wrote in
> >> >> > :
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control
> >> >> >>>> one
> >> >> >>>> mode of doing so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of
> >> >> >>> goods.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
> >> >> >>> tempting as a control mechanism.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
> >> >> >> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
> >> >> >> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's
> >> >> >> lives
> >> >> >> to it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><cue instrument="violins">
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
> >> >> >> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
> >> >> >> soviets won.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if
> >> >> > you'd
> >> >> > been thrown in the gulag!
> >> >> >
> >> >> ></cue>
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'it could be worse' excuse.
> >> >
> >> > No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no sense of
> >> > perspective" excuse.
> >>
> >> Bull****. I am sick and tired of being told I should accept one intrusion
> >> of the government into my life after another because 'it could be worse'.
> >
> > Accept it (or reject it) for the legitimate reasons offered for it.
>
> There are no legitimate reasons for a checkpoint in a free society. The
> checkpoint exists for the state and the minions that carry it out. It
> doesn't make us 'safer', all it does it make it easier for us to be
> victimized by government.

It most certainly makes us safer. Don't you think one drunk driver ever
arrested at a checkpoint would have had a crash of some sort causing
property damage and/or injury to others had he not been stopped at the
checkpoint?

If you admit this happened just once, we're safer. Whether it is worth
the cost of checkpoints is a different discussion, but its absurd to say
there is no safety benefit at all.
>
> > Don't accept it because it could be worse. But recognize that it could
> > be worse, and not every intrusion is of the same magnitude.
>
> Oh, I see... you want to construct a strawman. I never said things were
> of the same magnitude. that's your creation there buddy.

You compared having to detour around a checkpoint with living in
communist Russia. I pointed out - as Deadrat did first - that your
analogy fails because it utterly lacks perspective.

In article >, Larry wrote:

>> There are no legitimate reasons for a checkpoint in a free society. The
>> checkpoint exists for the state and the minions that carry it out. It
>> doesn't make us 'safer', all it does it make it easier for us to be
>> victimized by government.

> It most certainly makes us safer. Don't you think one drunk driver ever
> arrested at a checkpoint would have had a crash of some sort causing
> property damage and/or injury to others had he not been stopped at the
> checkpoint?

> If you admit this happened just once, we're safer. Whether it is worth
> the cost of checkpoints is a different discussion, but its absurd to say
> there is no safety benefit at all.

'if it only saves one life'

The cry of a control freak. What about all the people hassled? The people
who have had their property wrongfully siezed under the various other
laws that let the government step on us? What about them?

You can justify the police state with crap like that, but it is still a
police state. A drunk driver is a tiny risk compared to what happens by
government power. It's governments that have killed people by the
millions. Government is the leading cause of death.

And your 'one life' What about the lives that were not saved because the
cops were busy running a checkpoint when across town a drunk that would
have been stopped by a regular patrol using good old fashioned observation
killed someone? What then? DUI checkpoints have been shown time and time
again to be ineffective in their stated mission. However they do well at
their mission to get people used to martial law mechanisms.

>> > Don't accept it because it could be worse. But recognize that it could
>> > be worse, and not every intrusion is of the same magnitude.

>> Oh, I see... you want to construct a strawman. I never said things were
>> of the same magnitude. that's your creation there buddy.

> You compared having to detour around a checkpoint with living in
> communist Russia. I pointed out - as Deadrat did first - that your
> analogy fails because it utterly lacks perspective.

You have the reading ability of gpstroll. I wrote that as the years pass
since the end of the cold war it's becoming more and more like that the
soviets won. The key term your internal computing and redefining dropped
off is 'more'. Checkpoints make it *MORE* like the soviet union than the
USA used to be.

I remember the USA before checkpoints. I remember the USA
before I had to present papers at the whim of so-called 'authority'. I
remember when the propaganda told us that the USA were the good guys
because it didn't do those things.