The New ‘Kill Switch’ Bill

Guess What Was Hiding in That 1000-pg Bill

From the Tom Woods Letter:

You may have heard that as of yesterday, it’s been decided that beginning in 2026 all cars sold in the United States will be equipped with a “kill switch,” whereby the car can be disabled remotely if it is determined that you are driving poorly.

Rep. Thomas Massie sought to defund this provision of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a bill of over 1000 pages. His amendment was defeated.

But I want you to see the difference in how he argues from how the Democrats argue. You’ll see it immediately.

First Massie:

My amendment is simple. It will defund the federal mandate that requires all new vehicles after 2026 be equipped with a kill switch that can disable a vehicle if the vehicle has monitored the user’s the driver’s performance, and that the vehicle determines that the driver is not performing well.

It’s so incredible that I have to offer this amendment. It almost sounds like the domain of science fiction, dystopian science fiction, that the federal government would put a kill switch in vehicles that would be the judge, the jury and the executioner on such a fundamental right as the right to travel freely. But here we are. It is federal law that this is mandated. And so I am offering this amendment to defund this mandate.

Then Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) delivers her response:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me be clear. This the act that the gentleman is trying to defund does not require auto manufacturers to install kill switches. It does not do that. Passive drunk driving technology is a vital tool in safeguarding our loved ones and other innocent people on our roads. This new technology offers a lifeline of hope to not only save lives, but to prevent the lifelong emotional toll and gargantuan costs these accidents inflict on families. Deadly drunk driving accidents can echo across generations, but we can seize this opportunity to stop such tragedies.

Between 2019 and 2021, Florida saw a 31% increase in drunk driving crashes in Mr. Massie’s home state of Kentucky, 190 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2021 alone. That was a 26% increase. When we saw these grim statistics, we acted in a bipartisan fashion in Congress. And how often do we see that both Republicans and Democrats supported the Halt act to require auto manufacturers to make this passive technology standard in new vehicles?

The sponsor of this misguided amendment will tell you that he worries about privacy concerns. We heard the same inane calls with seatbelt requirements. But you don’t have a right to engage in potentially fatal behavior that we know poses a major health threat to public safety. Passive drunk driving technology is pro-police. This anti-drunk driving technology lightens the load on police officers, allowing them to focus on more pressing safety concerns. The importance of this technology goes far beyond statistics. It’s about saving lives, preventing heartbreak and making our roads safer. It’s a passionate call to action to prevent alcohol-impaired driving from shattering the lives of those we hold dear.

This amendment, I understand, was dubbed the kill switch amendment and it does not require a kill switch. It simply allows, it simply requires passive technology to help us prevent drunk driving. In the name of the 406 people who that were killed by a drunk driver in my own state of Florida last year alone, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Let’s take steps to reduce deaths due to drunk driving, not increase them.

Now here’s Massie again:

Drunk driving is a serious problem. That’s why 31 states already have a law to implement interlock ignition technology, where if you’ve been convicted of a DUI, that you have to pass this test in order to operate your vehicle. But this federal law that I seek to defund goes far beyond that. And I regret that I have to spend some of my time reading the law to the other side of the aisle. But I will do that.

This law that was passed in a thousand-page bill two years ago requires that automobiles can passively monitor the performance of a driver, not the blood alcohol content, but the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired, not drunk, it says impaired, and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation. That’s a kill switch.

Now the question is, how much time do you have once your dashboard tells you that it doesn’t approve of your driving? What if you’re a single mother and you’re out on a in bad weather and you’re trying to avoid some obstacles? Ice perhaps. And you’ve swerved three times and your dashboard says: swerve one more time and you’re going to be put over to the side of the road, that you’ll have 100 yards to park this vehicle in the middle of nowhere with your children in the back seat.

This isn’t some fantastical scenario. This is what will happen if this is implemented.

And this is the law. I have read it to you here. Now, you maybe should have read it two years ago when you all voted for it on that side of the aisle. But it was in a bill that was 1039 pages long. So I can understand how you don’t know what the law has in it. But I’ve read it to you.

Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) then speaks, evidently having heard none of what Rep. Massie just said:

More than 10,000 people die every year from drunk driving crashes. Drunk drivers are seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober person. So you would think that the Republicans would want to do something about it. Democrats have done something about it and said that NHTSA now will have drunk driver protection prevention technology.

You know, this this technology has the potential of saving thousands of lives. And I don’t see that you’re agreeing that we should be saving those lives. And I would say we should all vote against the Drunk Driver Protection Act [her sarcastic name for the Massie amendment], and I yield back.

And finally Massie, who as you’ll notice is the only one who doesn’t sound like he’s reading a fourth-grade book report:

Well, we actually don’t know how this technology is going to work. And they don’t know over at the DoD, either, because we’ve sent a letter to them that they haven’t responded to yet, asking them: will this have cameras inside the car? Will it monitor your eyes to see if you’re focused on the road? Will it have cameras on the outside of the car? How will it know what your performance is relative to the road that you’re driving on if it doesn’t in fact know which road you’re driving on?

Will it need to know where you are when you are driving? If so, who has access to this data? Who has access to those cameras? Will the Fourth Amendment be followed? Will you require a warrant for your insurance company to access this data? Will you require a warrant for the government to access this data once your car has been disabled and now you’re on the side of the road with your children in it for reasons you don’t understand? How long until the police show up? Or what if you truly are disabled and you’re over to the side of the road? Does anybody show up? How long do you have to get out of the vehicle? Who decides when your vehicle kill switch is disabled and you get to drive again? Who’s going to adjudicate that on the side of the road?

What if it’s rush-hour traffic? What if you know you’ve already got points against you according to your dashboard, and it’s monitored your performance, and now there’s somebody’s pet in the road, do you swerve to miss it and get your car disabled? What if there’s an emergency vehicle approaching from behind you, and you know, the right thing is to swerve off the road and let that vehicle pass? After you’ve done that three times and now your car says, do it one more time and we’re going to leave you on the side of the road?

This is in the law. This will become law in 2026. Every vehicle manufactured after that. And it’s not about drunk driving. If it were, it would just be about blood alcohol content. This law has far more than that in it. It violates the Fourth Amendment. It violates so many amendments. It violates things that are so fundamental to our rights that they’re not even in the Constitution, like the right to travel. And so I urge support of this amendment. It will defund the law that was passed two years ago, that the other side of the aisle doesn’t even know exists.

It’s an open-and-shut case, yet all the Democrats and 19 Republicans voted to keep the kill switch.

The rate at which things are getting crazier is truly out of control.

From LRC, here.

Former President Harry Truman on Limiting the Evil CIA – Written a Month After JFK’s Assassination

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman

(December 22, 1963, buried by the Washington Post on page A11, of course)

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President’s performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.

Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what’s worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department “treatment” or interpretations.

I wanted and needed the information in its “natural raw” state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being “upset.”

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about “Yankee imperialism,” “exploitive capitalism,” “war-mongering,” “monopolists,” in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

From Mae Brussell, here.

HUMOR? When You Can Expect the Official War Inquiry

Netanyahu Promises Full Inquiry Into Gaza Failure Once He Retires

“A sober reckoning can take place after enough time has passed for immediate emotions not to distort our perceptions. Say, in about fifteen years.”

Jerusalem, October 23 – The incumbent prime minister of Israel vowed to conduct a thorough investigation of the numerous failures that allowed a Palestinian invasion of Israel’s south that took more than a thousand lives, captured hundreds of civilians including women and children, and involved the rape, torture, and mutilation of Israelis – after he has stepped out of political life.

Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a gathering of mayors from the affected region of the country. “This is just like after the Yom Kippur War” of 1973, he asserted, when a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria made unprecedented advances into Israeli-held territory and threatened the very existence of the Jewish State, or so many feared at the time. A subsequent inquiry detailed the intelligence, operational, and political missteps that led to the debacle.

“For now we must prosecute this campaign to its only reasonable conclusion,” he assured those assembled. “We must crush Hamas, eliminate its capacity to wage war, perhaps its very existence as a cohesive group, and make arrangements never to allow such circumstances again. Then, I guarantee, there will be a complete, comprehensive, non-partisan study of the leadup to, and the initial conduct of, this war – provided that, at that point, I have already retired from political life.”

Continue reading…

From PreOccupied Territory, here.

Some Good Clean Fun at the Israeli Left’s Expense

Land-For-Peace Politicians Thinking This Maybe Not The Best Time For New Promo

“You know, with people’s attention on, y’know, other things.”

Tel Aviv, October 12 – Figures on Israel’s left who have long pushed for a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians that involves Israeli territorial concessions in exchange for Palestinian or international security guarantees have determined that current events might have rendered a planned series of events and publicity to promote the principle somewhat unwise to launch at the moment.

A handful of serving Knesset members, several dozen activists, a similar number of academics, and former legislators from the Labor and Meretz Parties agreed Thursday morning not to pursue a campaign they had scheduled to kick off next week to convince Israelis that relinquishing control of Israeli-held territories to the Palestinians will help Israel consolidate and shore its international standing, its economy, and its safety, a member of the group disclosed today. However, the developments of the last week have prompted some second thoughts on the part of at least half the coalition; a straw poll last night, followed by a formal vote this morning, saw the indefinite postponement of the initiative.

“We, uh, yeah, we think, uh, it might not be the most, uh, effective use of our resources,” acknowledged former Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On. “You know, with people’s attention on, y’know, other things. It’s not going to have the impact we aim to achieve with such a campaign.”

“We ourselves have no doubt about the justice and workability of our ideas,” explained Former Labor MK Yosi Beilin, an architect of the Oslo peace process and model that ceded control to, and armed, Palestinians in areas Israel had taken from Jordan and Egypt in 1967, including the major urban centers of the Gaza Strip, and in the aftermath of which thousands of Israelis have been murdered by Palestinians operating from those areas. “It’s just that there are some loud ideas out there that seem more compelling, more convincing, to many people, and which prevent people from understanding the necessity of implementing something similar again with more territory.”

“We will continue to monitor the situation,” asserted MK Merav Michaeli of Labor. “We don’t put much stock in public opinion polls, because they never show what we believe to be true anyway, but now is obviously not the time. Probably because of all the Likud and Bibi propaganda. That distorts everything. We want to set the record straight, and we have constant talks with some of our Palestinian colleagues about that, but for some reason they’re avoiding us right now. they must be very busy with personal matters or something.”

From PreOccupied Territory, here.

American Military ‘Help’ Will Multiply Jew-Hatred and Hurt America, Too

10/24/2023

President Joe Biden announced last week that the United States would be funding – and possibly fighting – three wars in three different parts of the world at the same time. It is an ambitious foreign policy for a president who doesn’t even seem to be able to express a coherent thought without the help of a teleprompter.

Nearly every word of Biden’s speech was untrue, including the preposterous suggestion that “American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe.”

US interventionism in Ukraine for over ten years and in the Middle East for decades has brought those two regions to the brink of an explosion unlike anything seen before. And if that is not enough, Biden’s neocons are also determined to take us to war with China over Taiwan. The world is literally falling apart in front of us as Biden claims we are the only thing holding it together!

After a brutal attack on Israel by Hamas earlier this month, Israel declared war not just on the terrorists who attacked its territory, but on the entire population of Gaza itself. Israel’s policy of collective punishment – razing Gaza to the ground – has inflamed Muslims from the Middle East to Asia to Western capitals. The anger rages more fiercely than we have seen in decades, perhaps since the founding of Israel in 1948.

Yet instead of trying to help facilitate a ceasefire and a peaceful solution, Biden has poured gasoline onto the fire, sending two US carrier groups and at least 15,000 troops, while threatening war on Lebanon, Iran, and Syria if they intervene in Israel’s war on the Palestinians. What might Russia do if the US attacks Russian forces in Syria or Russia’s allies in Tehran?

Biden also repeated the line that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” While that may be true, it is not Israel defending itself. It’s the US government intervening to defend Israel. And as the entire Muslim world rages against Israel over the destruction of Gaza, how do we think they will feel about us as the financiers and facilitators of that destruction?

By dragging the United States into this war, President Biden has planted the seeds of innumerable 9/11-style blowback attacks on the US. Yet he has the audacity to claim that all of this is keeping us safe.

Recent polls show that most Americans disagree with Biden. A CBS/YouGov poll taken last week shows that the majority of Americans oppose sending weapons to Israel. His Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen assured us that “we can afford” to finance two wars because the US economy is doing “exceptionally well.” Maybe the American people know something Yellen and the elites do not.

As Biden demands another $105 billion to fund the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan, his speech seemed to have a touch of campaign rhetoric in it. “I’m told I was the first American [president] to enter a warzone not controlled by the United States military since President Lincoln,” he said in his speech. The statement is blatantly false, but he must believe it gives him an air of bravado.

They say that it is advantageous to be seen as a “wartime president” when elections roll around, but Joe Biden may have miscalculated the level of support he will get for being a “World-War-Three-time president.”

Originally published by the Ron Paul Institute.

From Mises.org, here.


Note: Do I really need to add I don’t agree with every word?