No more clintons; stop using federal funds to bypass local and state government

One of the dumbest driving laws there might be are the "no tolerance" laws for minors driving. It is one of the dumber laws because any time a minor eats carbs, or even drinks a soda, or eats low carbs, their bodies will produce ethanol, ketones, or acetone on its own. There is often a lower [than adult] .04 BAC standard for commercial drivers-so if you drive under a cdl don't chug a soda.

With reliable gas chromatographic methods of analysis, the concentrations of endogenous ethanol in the peripheral venous blood of healthy patients, as well as those suffering from metabolic disorders such as diabetes, cirrhosis, or hepatitis ranged from 0 to 0.08 mg/dl. These concentrations are too low to be significant. The notion that intoxication of a motorist was a direct result of endogenously produced ethanol has as yet not been scientifically demonstrated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513346/

the .08mg/dl isn't as bad as I previously thought. It is .1 grams/liter that translates into .01 BAC. so um 1 liter is 10 deciliters, and 1 grams is 1000 mg. So um, .08 (mg/dl)x(1gram/1000mg)x(10dl/liter)=.8mg x g x dl/(1000 x dlmgliter)=.8 x g/(1000 Liter)=.0008g/liter=.008 BAC. That is about a tenth of the legal limit in the USA if you are an adult, a 5th if you are a cdl driver, and over the limit if you are a kid. Worse are the people with the auto-brewery syndrome who can develop a BAC over .3 without consuming any alcohol.

"I'm in touch with about 30 people who believe they have this same syndrome, about 10 of them are diagnosed with it," said Panola College Dean of Nursing Barbara Cordell, who has studied the syndrome for years. "They can function at alcohol levels such as 0.30 and 0.40 when the average person would be comatose or dying. Part of the mystery of this syndrome is how they can have these extremely high levels and still be walking around and talking."
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/health/auto-brewery-syndrome-dui-womans-body-brews-own-alcohol/index.html

Regarding the no tolerance laws for minors, It is just another example of the states being anti-science...or is it.

Liberally construed: The no tolerance drunk driving law for minors is a way of saying telling kids not to drive at all. For adults it is a way of saying don't digest anything (or use hand sanitizers, or mix your drinks with diet sodas, etc), else you could be put at risk. Most people, of course, don't think/realize that because we don't really have the debate about bad policies. Drunk driving bad, people die, end of story, end of debate-or so they say. Further debate can be had in the court room. And if you happen to be caught up in the wheel of misfortune, just a conviction could set you back $10000 if you plead guilty-more if you try to beat your case. So, aside for the wealthy, or maybe an unusually determined public defender, it really is the end of the debate even before it started up again.

As a background on this story, I was sick [yesterday] and watched some old videos on youtube-including an old 1990 clips of Alex jones. Now, ultimately what I will comment on after this paragraph is from a 1996 NY times article for readers who may not like Jones as a source. But the video features Jones from the 1990s, back from an era when I was too young and dumber. Jones staged a protest inside a Texas DMV wanting to get his drivers license without being finger printed. The basis for this...and remind you this is the 1990s, was a reportedly a Clinton executive order trying to get states to collect blood and urine samples to get a drivers license. Jones Rambled on about biometrics, Something that is increasingly would become standard after 9-11. Something more terrifying these days when the government wants to build a DNA databases, and is increasingly using ancestry databases to identify suspects. Last I known a few states were stragglers, but the government basically is collecting your eigenfaces now from photographs which isn't as physically invasive as a blood test....oh, but reportedly they genetically screening new borns anyways

I am not able to find the original document from 1993 that Jones speaks of. But as I said, the new York Times also speaks of something similar. This one is from 1996.

President Clinton said today that teen-agers should be required to pass a drug test before receiving driver's licenses, and he instructed Administration officials to report to him in 90 days with a plan, including possible legislation, to make such a practice standard around the country.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/20/us/clinton-proposes-drug-testing-plan-for-young-people.html .

The purpose for which I write is also found in that news article:

Last year, Congress took such a step, at Mr. Clinton's urging, on teen-agers and alcohol.

Under the new law on ''zero tolerance'' for drinking and driving by young people, states that do not have such a law within two years risk 5 percent of their Federal highway money the first year and 10 percent in each subsequent year.

The rule being issued on Monday spells out how stringent states must be to comply with the law.

Although there are severe problems across this country with the police state, generally the best place to tell government no they can't is at your town/city hall, or even your state legislature. Trying to get Washington to listen is next to impossible, and about the only way to force the issue is to sue in the courts-which is awfully expensive and time consuming. As we all hear abut the evils of lobbyist, is that the policy makers tends to follow the money. And here it is Washington being the lobbyist to pay the states to usurp our rights and takes away from the people their ability to use government; Basically Washington giving a Yuge handouts to the lobbyest and doing their job for them at the state level-only with billions in federal funding at stake. Now instead of the local legislature looking at, oh this is wrong and a balancing on interest, they have to look at their budgets-which probably isn't in the best of shape-but the federal highway (welfare) act fuels jobs in their economy at a Yuge price per job and billions of dollars in economic stimulus....lots of pork brought into the states. Pork, as we all know, isn't kosher. It is unclean. Your unearned homelessness, unemployment, bankrupcy, convictions, and fines, mean nothing to them in the grander picture. You can neither fund their campaign nor run against them, and if the dems had their way you would lose your gun rights too.

As far as the .08 BAC number in all 50 states? That reportedly is Clintons doing also:

In 2000, President Clinton's transportation appropriations bill required all states to lower their permissible blood alcohol content to .08% by October 2003 or risk losing federal highway construction funds. The government concluded that lowering the permissible limit from .10% to .08% reduced alcohol-related fatalities by 7%, translating to 500 lives saved each year.
-https://www.russmanlaw.com/blog/dwi/news/history-of-dui-laws

hmm, how many lives were ruined each year by false DUI arrests? By false arrest I mean suicides, self-medication, recidivism, homelessness, and various other secondary effects. I remember one DUI case, guy was a national taster and worked at some alcohol store making good money. He was prohibited from working in places that sell alcohol, and a couple months later the the newspaper listed his home as foreclosed. If the states or feds wanted, they could easily regulate it so cars will not operate if they detect alcohol. DUI law is a pure money grab.

There are republicans who hate big government (well, are there any left) and wants small government, and there are federalist who loves big states governments over big federal government, and there are democrats who love the federal government trying to regulate everything. Obviously we need a federal government, but the role it is playing is backwards and the people are sick of the political elitists on both sides.

The federal government should not be paying money to a state for any thing. Of course the feds pay entitlement to states for welfare too, I am more concerned about locking people up than about a few dollars here and there. Ideally the only power that a federal government should have over the states and the people, is to prevent the states and their officers from trampling over the rights of the people. I don't mean in an Obertfelt v Hodges error that thinks marraige is a right that comes from government or Roe v Wade travesty that kills the unborn. Obviously the democrats have it wrong each time they try to find a national solution for everything; whether it be through the legislature or the superlegislature. The federalist have it Bass Ackwards trying to immunize officers and give states sovereign immunity because that effectively is fascism and slavery if a state so desired. And the republicans obviously blew it from 2017-2018, to the point they lost the house because they didn't strive for small government and kept spending money they didn't have.

Yes the feds pay the states money to distribute entitlements-that is immoral, but I don't want today to address that issue. Whether it is the feds paying for a cop on every street, the feds paying money to state CPS to kidnap children (or so I hear), the feds giving the police military grade armaments, sharing of federal civil asset forfeiture to the states (that may still continue so long as it is not excessive), or money that pays state legislatures money to criminalize certain things....these are practices that must stop. Regarding VAWA, which incentives states to enforce unconstitutional gags. Even in the cases where these gags are not being applied to political speakers we should recognize almost everyone of them to be an act of terrorism. All these gags, when done in the family unit, is one party, using the force of government, to commence an act of terrorism against the politics of the castle. With millions of gags issued a year, up to 2 million people a year have been terrorized in their own homes ultimately by our own government. As federal judge Ross threatens us with the power of arrest, we are not supposed to even talk about the murders and suicides these gags causes.

The government of Democrats are despotic in nature no matter how you try to spin them, but they are truly anti-science, anti-property, anti-liberty, anti-life. Do they understand what they are criminalizing? They criminalize the peaceful ways to bring about change. They tell kids that if you want to drive and be free from prosecution, you literally have to starve yourself. Of course kids who are starving themselves and drive do so for other reasons, adults haven't stopped drinking a beer/wine and driving.

Part of me wonders how much today, and stem is no exception, if we are all being churned into useful idiots with degrees that somehow lets us feel smart. The smarter you are, then the more you realize how dumb you are-especially when you see more and more gaping holes in what you know. With you having established a marker of yourself as dumb, and others assigning you are smart (including specialists in their fields), it is chilling to think how dumb the rest of the world is.
And of course it is scarier to think about the people who get into office; the ones who decide when to use force upon others with impunity. Clinton was a Rhode scholar. Allegedly that means he wasn't stupid, secondly he has access to the input of some of the best minds in the country. The best lawyers, the best doctors, top advisers. Unlike Alexandria Occasio Cortez who is clearly an idiot-and people can debate who she is useful to-,Clinton doesn't really have an excuse for being stupid. He knew what he was doing or at least very well should have known, and he knew or should have known that it was evil. It wasn't a case of the states being anti-science, it was the case of a despotic president and his equally despotic congress trying to make everyone criminals without them knowing any better and shaking them down and locking them up and besmirking their reputation.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
-Atlas shrugged

Although clinton isn't responsible for the drug whisperer, his MADD policies ultimately lead to serious abuse in crooked Cobb County. Cops there can just look at a driver and declare that they were driving with on drugs.

A police officer in Cobb County, Georgia has been dubbed the “drug whisperer” due to his habit of arresting people for driving drunk or stoned even when their breathalyzer, field-sobriety and blood tests showed they were completely sober.
https://heavy.com/news/2017/05/officer-tracy-tt-carroll-cobb-county-georgia-princess-mbamara-katelyn-ebner-drug-whisperer-drug-recognition-expert/

The specialized training that gives experts such as Officer Carroll the vision to see signs of marijuana impairment where it doesn’t even exist is not unique to Cobb County or Georgia; the International Association of Chiefs of Police says that the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP) trains “Drug Recognition Experts” in all 50 states as well as Washington, D.C., Canada, and “and several othercountries [sic] around the world.”
-see Id.

All 50 states have this half baked idea, huh? I suppose there is federal funding linked somewhere to this bad idea. Even a trace with an allegation of impaired driving is enough to indict. Just remember that as our drinking water is increasingly becoming contaminated with pharmasueticals and other drugs, here is a report from London (U.k). So much estrogen in Lake apopka, male creatures are becoming female.

The IACP says that the program originated with the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1970s. In 1987, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started DEC pilot programs in Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia. Utah, Indiana and California were added the following year, and in 1989 the program spread throughout the entire United States.
-Los Angeles, then Reagan, then bush sr.

The funding is also linked to highway safety acts.

Through federal funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is pleased to announce that six states have received more than $100,000 in funding to help law enforcement better address drug-impaired driving.
-https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/NHTSA-DUIDgrants18

And ultimately, we see the source in a Reagan era Omnibus spending package:

In 1988, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus Drug Bill. This legislation funded a large scale expansion of DRE training. Due in large measure to this bill, law enforcement agencies in 33 states have adopted the DRE program. As of 1998, there are approximately 4,000 certified DREs nationwide, including approximately 400 DRE instructors. In addition, DREs now serve in Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Norway. South Africa, through the auspices of its Council on Scientific and Industrial Research, is expected to adopt the DRE Program in the near future.
-http://www.lapdonline.org/special_operations_support_division/content_basic_view/1038

Having a DRE may not be a bad thing, when it comes down to insurance claims or getting people medical attention, or getting them off the road. All 50 states have criminalized driving while under the influence of drugs. So whats going on with this driving while under the influence laws in every 50 states?
Well, it is the national transportation highway safety program again. They have a model code (going as far back as 1926) for the states to follow called a uniform vehicle code and or "UNIFORM GUIDELINES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NUMBERS AND TITLES", and receiving federal funds requires that the states model their code around it. Herein are also the regulations to reduce the cdl BAC to .04.
https://one.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Planning%20Evaluation%20&%20Budget/Programs%20&%20Grants/Associated%20Files/Uniform%20Guidelines%20For%20State%20Highway%20Safety%20Programs.pdf

Define impaired driving offenses -
ƒ Establish .08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) as the blood
alcohol level at or above which it is illegal to operate a motor
vehicle ("illegal per se");
ƒ Establish .04 BAC as the illegal per se blood alcohol level for
commercial truck and bus operators, as provided by commercial
driver license regulations;
ƒ Establish that it is illegal per se for persons under the age of 21 (the
legal drinking age) to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol
in their blood, breath, or urine;
ƒ Establish that driving under the influence of other drugs (whether
illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter) is unlawful and is treated
similarly to driving under the influence of alcohol;
ƒ Establish vehicular homicide or causing personal injury while
under the influence of alcohol as a separate offense; and
ƒ Prohibit open alcohol containers and consumption of alcohol in
motor vehicles.
ƒ Provide for effective enforcement of these laws -
ƒ Authorize police to conduct checkpoints, in which vehicles are
stopped on a nondiscriminatory basis to determine whether or not
the operators are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
ƒ Authorize police to use a preliminary breath test for a vehicle
operator stopped for a suspected impaired driving offense;
ƒ Authorize police to test for impairing drugs other than alcohol;
ƒ Include implied consent provisions that permit the use of chemical
tests and that allow the arresting officer to require more than one
test of a vehicle operator stopped for a suspected impaired driving
offense;
ƒ Require prompt and certain license revocation or suspension for
persons who refuse to take a chemical test to determine whether
they were driving while intoxicated ("implied consent"); and
ƒ Require mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing whenever a
law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a driver
has committed an alcohol-related offense.
. . .

Just remember that when a federal judge strikes down federal prohibitions of FGM as unconstitutional because the feds don't have that power but the states do. The Clinton Whitehouse was using federal funds to pay states money to do things, in the name of the state, for the federal government that the federal government doesn't have. Also remember that judges in many cases are revenue collectors for their locality. Should the judges, or the appellate judges rule in favor of the people, then state stands to lose billions in federal grants. Hate to say it, but the system is inherently rigged against the people.

I wasn't planning to use the alex jones video i found, but he scored an interview with Ramsey Clark after Waco. I can't find that clip elsewhere on youtube. Say what you want about him, but he does offer a bunch of informational gold you won't hear from anywhere else. Ramsey Clarke was a left wing progressive attorney General for LBJ, not a right winger. It is hard to imagine a period when even the democrats were actually opposed to the police state, really before my awakening to politics. It is about 19:29 in, or &t=1169

source:alex jones

One aspect of this constitutional balance is that the “States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635 (1993). In the same vein, the Supreme Court has noted that in the area of “criminal law enforcement . . . States historically have been sovereign,” United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 548, 564 (1995), and that “[t]he Constitution . . . withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power.” Id. at 566. In United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598, 615, 618 (2000), the Court noted the “Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority” and that “[t]he regulation and punishment of intrastate violence . . . has always been the province of the States.” Further, “we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.” Id. at 618.
-USA v Nagarwala

Perhaps the feds could justify the coercion of state policies under the intestate commerce clause under the NTHSB, but certainly it can't under vawa. Part of VAWA once allowed a private suit in federal court, but the SCOTUS struck that down part of VAWA too. U.S. v. Morrison. Clearly Morrison didn't go far enough at restricting the federal government.

It is one thing when one state screws up their laboratory of democracy; the people can leave for another state. It is another thing when the entire federal government screws up, and the people have no choice but to pack their bags and go into exile. Which is what I think I'll blog about next week, unless I am struggling to meet a work deadline.