Posted on 01/02/2023 7:30:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[EXCERPT]
According to an article written by former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, hidden away in the recently passed infrastructure bill, the very one I warned before would negatively impact drivers across the country if it were to pass, is a measure to install vehicle kill switches into every new car, truck, and SUV sold in this country. The regulation likely won’t be enforced for five years, so maybe there’s time to do something about this. …
It gets even better: Barr points out that the bill, which has been signed into law by President Biden, states that the kill switch, which is referred to as a safety device, must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.” In other words, Big Brother will constantly be monitoring how you drive. If you do something the system has been programmed to recognize as driver impairment, your car could just shut off, which could be incredibly dangerous.
There is the possibility the kill switch program might measure your driving as impaired, then when you try to start the car up again the engine won’t fire up. That would potentially leave you stranded.
But wait, there’s more. This kill switch “safety” system would be open, or in other words there would be a backdoor. That would allow police or other government authorities to access it whenever. Would they need a warrant to do that? Likely not. Even better, hackers could access the backdoor and shut down your vehicle.
(via Lucianne)
There’ll be hacks available on Amazon 15 minutes after the first model hits the showroom floor.
And when they make it a felony to hack your car b/c you’re cheating the IRS out of taxation by mile driven, are you willing to risk ‘hacking’ it? This is how they’re going to trap us into accepting their violation of 4th Amendment.
This story is from 2021, and was in the infrastructure bill (also bad), not the recent omnibus.
The problem is not being paranoid enough.
I can see it now when LEOs are in pursuit of a modern car with this, they flip the switch and turns off their cars.
Yep. At Taco Bell? No car for you. Walk fatso.
Just like CV19 experimental jabs, someone is going to make a profit from this unconstitutional (imo) forced purchase.
Consider that Justice Joseph Story had volunteered an example list of things that, while intimately related to commerce are, not found in Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Included in his list is "manufactures," the dictionary showing manufactured goods. Story had emphasized that while manufactures and commerce are intimately related, the power to regulate manufactures is not included in Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory.Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Regarding the constitutionally indefensible (imo) omnibus bill, if this were a better world, ALL of Congress should lose their offices under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, even lawmakers who voted against the bill, for not whistleblowing about its massive constitutionally indefensible spending.
In fact, ALL of Congress, including lawmakers who voted against Pelosi's constitutionally indefensible omnibus spending bill but did not challenge its constitutionality, needs to be removed from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for open rebellion to the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
bttt
That was Lucas. It was a feature, not a bug.
In other words, sometimes the Barr craps on you, other times the Barr craps on you too.
If your social score drops below a certain level, the kill switch will be activated.
I just hung a plastic bag with a couple of ice cubes on top of the ‘stat’.
Jaguars are actually good cars once you've fixed and replaced all the problematic parts from the factory.
Crazy what some locals are asking for pre-1980 era vehicles. Wifey wants a project car, and I’m on board; but for anything even remotely workable, we are looking at over $5k.
I’m considering just securing an early seventies 350 v8 and 350 trans for the 90 chevy pickup. A spare radiator would be smart too I suppose.
But if fuel and undisabled vehicles becomes nearly unattainable then chaos will be the norm, and venturing out would require something much thicker than body metal.
I have been suspicious of the capabilities of those “Onstar” links many newer cars come with, and the capability to remote shut down.
Heck, if they can remotely open doors, why not also disable the engine? When I have time to dig, will disconnect the antenna for the thing.
Bought a 2012 4Runner that had that installed. Supposedly not active, but I got the Toyota electric manual and removed the damn thing.
Just find a way to disconnect the cellular antenna on top of the car. No link = no remote control.
What’ll they do in new movies for high speed chases? So much for a re-make of Smoky and the Bandit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.