Georgia bill to ban driver licenses and traffic tickets

Florida Libertarian Party Chairman Adrian Wyllie surrenders driver license in protest of REAL ID Act. This shows what a joke the “need” for a drivers license is, and also what a joke law enforcement can be. It’s time to repeal the drivers license statute and exercise our God-given inalienable fundamental right to travel upon the public roads and right-of-ways.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways by automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, under Constitutional guarantee."
-II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489

"Govt control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank

"The taxicabs of New York City, with their distinctive yellow paint, are a widely recognized icon of the city. Taxicabs are operated by private companies and licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. The Commission is a New York City government agency that is best known for its responsibility for the more than 13,237 taxis operating in the city. It also oversees over 40,000 other for-hire vehicles, including "black cars", commuter vans and ambulettes. "Medallion taxis," the familiar yellow cabs, are the only vehicles in the city permitted to pick up passengers in response to a street hail. In 1937 Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia signed the Haas Act, which introduced official taxi licenses and the medallion system that remains in place today. Because the medallion system artificially restricts the number of cabs, it has been criticized as a barrier to entry to the taxi market[10] that has created a market for illegal taxicab operation in areas underserved by medallion cabs. Because the cost of leasing a medallion is so high, the system may cut into the income of drivers and raise costs to passengers. The medallions which could not be sold for a simple $10 renewal fee during the 1930s are now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with fleet medallions topping $705,000 in 2011. As of June 2006, fares begin at $2.50 ($3.00 after 8:00 p.m., and $3.50 during the peak weekday hours of 4:00–8:00 p.m.) and increase based on the distance traveled and time spent in slow traffic (40 cents for each one-fifth of a mile or 60 seconds of no motion or motion under 12 miles an hour). In 1999, 241 million passengers rode in New York taxis. The average cab fare in 2000 was $6; passengers paid a total of over $1 billion in fares that year."
-Wikipedia, Taxicabs of New York City (NYC govt says you have no right to own a firearm for self defense, and says 9/11 was not an Inside Job)

No driver license = no jurisdiction for cops to arrest for traffic tickets...

The Dragonater uses this legal argument to win every traffic ticket trial.

400,000 illegal aliens are not required to show valid ID in Tennessee, and bought fake ID "driver certificates" from THP, marked "NOT VALID FOR IDENTIFICATION".




Bill Gates, Chairman and CEO of Microsoft, and the "richest man in the world" at over $50 Billion net worth, son of the director of Planned Parenthood paid $1-billion taxdollars to genocide 100-million US citizens so far, arrested in New Mexico 1977 for not having a driver license during a traffic stop for speeding, now the generic user icon in MS Outlook 2010

---

House Bill 875 -- Right to Travel Act

By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."

SECTION 2.

The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;

(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;

(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;

(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and

(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.

SECTION 3.

Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.

SECTION 4.

This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.

SECTION 5.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

Bill Status 2010

---

Hello Rep. Franklin,

I am a Tennessean, who originally got my drivers license at 16 in Georgia, and I will move back to Georgia if your bill to repeal the communist drivers license passes, because I am only 2 hours from the state line.

I'd like to offer my help and support in your bill. Here are some important reasons to repeal the drivers license, beyond the right to travel, that you may wish to assert in your legislative endeavors of repealing the communist license.

1) The drivers license is no longer being used for the "privilege" of driving but is now required to:

open a bank account, board a plane, purchase big ticket (money) items ect. You literally can't do anything "legal" anymore without a drivers license. If banks want picture ID's let them make their own. If someone walks through a metal detector then they should have to show a drivers license to board a plane. If I want to take out a loan, I shouldn't be required to show a drivers license. Any loan made, should be between me and the company making the loan, not the federal government.

2) The drivers license does not make us safe, it's just a piece of plastic and no State can make the case that those without a state issued piece of plastic are more dangerous on the roads than those with the state issued piece of plastic. I actually obtained my drivers license in a parking law in a Georgia state owned parking lot. I drove on no paved public road to prove my road worthiness, but made a circle in a parking lot type area. Clearly this did not demonstrate proficiency in driving, but the state of GA granted a license anyway. Thus, using the safety argument is bogus, because one doesn't have to demonstrate any real driving ability.

3) The drivers license is being converted into a national ID card ie. REAL ID and the PASS Act. It would be better if the state issued piece of plastic stayed just a state issued piece of plastic, but it's being morphed into a national ID card with a biometric chip in that carries our personal sensitive information that can be stolen easily. Nazi Germany should sound familiar here.

4) Drivers licenses are now used as extortion tools over drivers heads where they must pay ridiculous fines for arbitrary victimless crimes or lose their ability to use the roads they pay for through the gas tax.

5) Roget Roots has written a good law review article on the right to travel. He has written several other good law review articles: http://rogerroots.com/

Thus, the drivers license is required for nearly everything in society and yet it provides nothing more than extortion tool that states can use to control and manipulate people financially, and potentially worse if morphed into a national ID card with biometric data tracking capabilities. It's long past time to repeal this communist controlling agenda racket and I commend you for trying and will help in any way that I can through testimony, contacting other legislators ect.

Please let me know how I can be of service in seeing your wonderful legislation pass.

To freedom,

Tona Monroe
NaturalTreasure.net
Bring the Scameras Down Blog

---

Folks,

I did some more research on Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, and I must say that I have a new found hero.

http://www.broc.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/house/bios/franklinBobby/franklinBobby.htm

Check out some of his bills.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/mbrs/franklinbobby43rd.htm

He's the man that originally sponsored the GA Gold and Silver Constitutional Tender Bill. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb430.htm
Even better, he has a bill to amend the GA state constitution, that will give standing to every citizen to sue for the unconstitutionality of any state legislative act.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr1085.htm

More cherry picked legislative bills that are wonderful:
A bill abolishing real property tax: (note I am not a fan of this bill in it's entirity because it codifies zoning into the state constitution; therefore, I'd vote against it)
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr27.htm

Prohibiting GMO food from being feed to school children:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb698.htm

Raw Milk Bill:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb430.htm

There's a bill to provide that Animal Identification is voluntary.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb699.htm

Here he puts the smack down on the GA Supreme Court Chief Justice for not knowing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr1770.htm

A bill to tax the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta under the State income tax:
State income tax; federal reserve banks in Georgia shall not be exempt; provide
(1) Franklin,Bobby 43rd
HC:W&M
SC:
Status:02/19/09 - House Second Readers

He also has introduced impeachment charges against 2 state officials, which is rare.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED ABOUT 10,000 more state legislators like this and then our country wouldn't be on the road to hell anymore.

Tona Monroe
NaturalTreasure.net
Bring the Scameras Down Blog

---

Police officer Jack McLamb says you have a Constitutional right to travel without an internal passport driver license contract - There's no such thing as a pilots license, and no license is required to pilot an aircraft in USA today. Only commercial pilots, or pilots flying from commericial airports, need a pilot certificate, that allows speeding upside down at Mach 5 if you want to. 75% of judges in USA lack a license to practice law, so how do judges require a license to drive?

Here in Blount County TN, our judges only graduate from the University of Car Stereo Installation, take photos of themselves raping little girls in the Blount County 'Justice' Center then post those photos on the courthouse walls, settle out of court with the girls' families for $40,000 paid by the taxslaves, then avoid a 4 year jail sentence with Secret Probation. No law degree required for rapist judges.

Driver licenses are now beginning to include your entire personal history on a chip, plus a debit card to automatically tax your bank account for every mile you drive when you buy gas to turn every vehicle into a govt-owned taxicab. Don't that sound like fun?

---

US Constitution...it's THE LAW!






Libertarian Party presidential nominee Michael Badnarik's class on Constitutional Law

"Government control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank, written for jewish banksters by jew Karl Marx in London England in the heart of the 53-nation British Empire (owned by jew bankster Lord Rothschild since the Battle of Waterloo, the same jew families that own the private "Federal" Reserve Bank that counterfeits all "US dollars" and steals all fed income taxes, and just stole $30-trillion of your taxdollars from Congress in the past 2 years via Bushobama's Bankster Bailout Bills)

"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid."
—Colonel Paul Revere, owner of RevereWare¨, sworn affidavit: "Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775" (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War and kicking off the Battle of Lexington and Concord, against the army, navy and courts of King George III, heriditary dictator of England who attempted "gun control" by an Assault Weapons Ban of defensive 50-caliber muskets and cannon, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer

Battle of Athens TN in 1946, when 500 citizens opened fire with full-auto machine guns against 300 deputies and the sheriff, arresting the deputies and sheriff, even bombing the jail with dynomite, then were rewared by Congress and the White House, and promoted to sheriff, all because of bogus speeding tickets.

"Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. If we are, what are we going to do about it? Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits. Or a policeman will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure. Let's reject the police state."
—Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX, 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President, Landslide GOP candidate for president in 2008), speech in House of Representatives, United States Congress, "Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?" June 27, 2002

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways by automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, under Constitutional guarantee."
-II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
-Justice Tolman, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
-Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489

COP.
2. to steal; filch. 3. to buy (narcotics). 4. cop out, a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out. 5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence. b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge; plea-bargain.
-Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

Tennessee Auditors Arrive, 48 Blount Sheriff cars missing - "The state auditor arrived in the County a few weeks ago. The auditor was able to find only 239 vehicles. What happened to the other 48 vehicles? But the Sheriff wants the taxpayers to support a tax increase, so that he can have even more money to spend next year. Does this make sense to you?"

Cops get $200,000 salary, cities file for bankruptcy in federal court

Georgia bill to ban driver licenses, which denies cops and courts jurisdiction for traffic tickets

Police Officer Jack McLamb and US Supreme Court say you have a Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver License Contract

75% of judges lack a license to practice law, so how do judges require a license to drive?

DealsGapDragon.com Ticket Defense Info

The Prohibition Times - America's secret history of the current Prohibition of alcohol, a responsible driver's survival guide

"You haven't lived until you've heard a live police chase, on a car radio in a car you're driving."
—Danny Bonnaduce, a/k/a Danny Patridge, VH1 100 Top Child Stars

---

Saudi court sentences woman driver to 10 lashes for driving without a license

By Asma Alsharif
28 September 2011

A Saudi court has sentenced a woman to 10 lashes for challenging a ban on women driving in the conservative Muslim kingdom, Amnesty International said yesterday.

The sentence was reported two days after Saudi King Abdullah granted women the right to vote and run in municipal elections. He also promised to include them in the next all-appointed consultative Shura Council in 2013.

"Flogging is a cruel punishment in all circumstances, but it beggars belief that the authorities in Saudi Arabia have imposed lashes on a woman apparently for merely driving a car," Philip Luther, an Amnesty International regional deputy director, said in an emailed statement.

"Allowing women to vote in council elections is all well and good, but if they are still going to face being flogged for trying to exercise their right to freedom of movement then the king's much-trumpeted 'reforms' actually amount to very little."

Two other women are also believed to be facing charges related to driving, the Amnesty statement said.

Under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic laws, women require a male guardian's permission to work, travel abroad or even undergo some medical surgeries. They are not allowed to drive.

While there is no written law banning women from driving, citizens are required to use locally issued licences while in the country. These are not issued to women, making it effectively illegal for them to drive.

In May, as pro-democracy protests swept across the region, some women in Saudi Arabia demanded the right to drive. A campaign, Women2Drive, issued calls on social media such as Twitter and Facebook to challenge the ban.

Some women posted on Twitter that they drove successfully in the streets of Jeddah, Riyadh and Khobar, while others said they were stopped by police who later let them go after signing a pledge not to drive again.

On May 22, Manal Alsharif, who posted a YouTube video of her driving in the streets of Khobar, was arrested. She was later released but her case proved to be a deterrence for many women.

---

Hillary Clinton responds to Saudi women fighting for driving rights

6/21/2011

Saudi women fighting for the right to drive are cheering a small victory today. After nearly a month of pleading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally issued a public statement of support for their efforts.

“What these women are doing is brave, and what they are seeking is right,” Clinton said. “I’m moved by it [the campaign] and I support them.”

Clinton’s support came nearly two hours after the Saudi Women for Driving issued a public letter via Change.org in opposition to her “quiet diplomacy” tactic, announced at a State Department briefing on Monday.

“For the United States’ top diplomat to make no public statement about such developments sends exactly the wrong message to the Saudi government and, more importantly, to the women of Saudi Arabia,” the women wrote in the letter sent to 17 of Clinton’s top aides and circulated throughout the media.

Clinton responded by assuring the women that she has raised the driving ban with “the highest level of the Saudi government.”

“We have made clear our views that women everywhere, including women in the kingdom, have the right to make decisions about their lives, and their futures,” she said. “They have the right to contribute to society, and provide for their children and their families… Mobility, such as provided by the freedom to drive, provides access to economic opportunity, including jobs.”

---

Subject: Right to Travel/Drive
Date: Wed 06/22/11

From the desk of Tona Monroe
Delegate to the 2009 Continental Congress
Blount County TN

Legislators,

There is a growing movement in Saudi Arabia of women saying they have the right to drive. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has spoken of their right to mobility and freedom to drive.

A privilege is not the same a right. No one has to obtain permission from the government to exercise a right.

This raises a fundamental question in this society. If it's the right of these women, and ultimately all people, to travel by personal automobile, then why is is regulated as a privilege here in Tennessee in the land of the "free" and home of the brave? Do we Americans have less bravery and guts than the oppressed Saudi women?

It's time to repeal the 6th plank communist manifesto drivers license. It's wrong for you all to pass legislation attaching unrelated fines to the drivers license. You the legislature are guilty of extortion, telling people that can't freely travel upon the public "right"-of-ways and roads that they pay for through the gas tax.

Restore the people's fundamental right to travel. Repeal the communist drivers license.

House Bill 875 -- Right to Travel Act

Let freedom ring throughout this land once again.

FROM: TN State Rep. John Ragan

Dear Ms. Monroe,

There is no “Right to Drive.” However, there is a right to travel freely within the US to any location you choose (excluding military bases or other classified sites).

However, the mode of travel can be walking, horseback, train, bus, buggy, taxi, or any number of other transport means that do not require a license. It does not have to be “driving” an automobile.

“Driving” necessarily puts the public at risk from a vehicle operator’s potential lack of skill or knowledge. Consequently, it is well within the state’s delegated authority from its citizens to demand certain safeguards of vehicle operators.

One such safeguard is a requirement to pass an operator’s skill and knowlege test. Additionally, it is, likewise, perfectly within the state’s public safety and order maintence duties to require proof of an operator’s having accomplished this essential safety precaution in the form of a driver’s license.

Laws already in existence prohibit US and state government agencies from illegally discriminating against citizens on the basis of race, religious creed, ethnicity, or sex. These laws apply to the privelege of obtaining a driver’s license.

The issuance of a driver’s license has nothing to do with the type, or form, of government. Therefore, your allegation that driver’s licenses are “communist” is ludicrous.

I suggest you expand your knowlege of political systems and, in particular, the US government, through a good high school civics text.

Regards,

John D. Ragan
33rd District State Representative
Anderson County TN

My “gentle” response to Mr. Ragan. Seriously, I’d like to know where I delegated any authority to regulate my right to travel by giving it a new name called driving? The State constitution was written in 1870 and I wouldn’t have been able to vote on it. My vote, had I believe alive and enfranchised, would have been not to ratify it for numerous reasons.

Mr. Ragan,

I suggest that you follow your own advice and take a class in civic, but that could actually be the problem. The 10th plank of the communist manifesto is free education for kids. Public schools dumb kids down to the point that they don’t even know they have rights or that people ever use to enjoy such rights. Do they ever bother to teach school kids that the 10th plank of the communist manifesto is “free” education at the expense of others, including those that don’t have kids? Public school education is so poor that I graduated an honor student and didn’t even know that I had adrenal glands or anything about their functions.

Furthermore, any time you want to have a one-on-one debate in a public forum to compare our knowledge of history of this country, and the concept of liberty, I’ll take you on. I have read extensively on the right to travel and have provided you with a law review article on the matter (see below).

Quite frankly based on your response, I doubt you can even define the differences between rights and privileges. You implied that it was a matter of discrimination against women. The words being used are rights and freedom, not government regulated/controlled privileges.

You speak of modes of travel. The private automobile is a mode of travel, as any other mode including those that you mentioned. Per mile traveled it’s much safer than horseback. Why don’t we have to obtain a license to operate a horse? A horse can go crazy and kill people at anytime. If you’d like a list of examples, I’ll provide them to you. Furthermore, if I took my horse on the public roads, can they crap everywhere on the paved roads? Where are the horse trails that use to exist, where horse crap would not have been a problem? They were morphed into paved roads for automobiles.

Have you tried getting on a plane or bus lately? Unless you prove you’re not a terrorist you can’t board them. If it is a right to travel on a bus or plane, then one would NOT have to prove they’re not a terrorist to board these modes of transportation.

Per mile traveled, the private automobile is the safest form of travel available to the masses of people. Planes are safer, but unaffordable to most. Horses are much more dangerous, yet no operators license is required and they are far more dangerous per mile traveled.

Flippant answers like yours are why this country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Stupid or ignorant legislators like you thrust draconian laws on the people and then tell them they have no right and that you can lord over them in the name of public safety. Show me where I ever consented for any state legislator to make laws over me?

You’re a communist and simply too stupid to even know it. Since you speak of a civics lesson, read the 6th and 10th planks of the communist manifesto since you strongly identify with Marxist ideology.

6th plank Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Congrats Mr. Ragan, we officially have a communist in the state legislature encouraging people to be indoctrinated in 10th plank public school so that they are so dumbed down that they don’t know that they have rights because the state tells them it’s a privilege. Perhaps we can get the Communist party to give you the Marxist of the year award.

If you want a civics lesson, read this law review article on the drivers license.

Again, anytime you wish to compare wits in public, I’ll take you on and expose you for being the communist fool that you are.

On 6/22/2011 1:18 PM, John Ragan wrote:

Dear Ms. Monroe,

Thank you for your input. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

A tip for your future correspondence: insulting someone by calling him or her a "stupid or ignorant legislator" is hardly a good, human relations technique for convincing that person to agree with your point of view. Additionally, such a boorish, verbal outpouring is insulting not only to the individual, but to the thousands of fellow citizens who elected that individual. As an additional caution, such a comment indicates far more about the creator of such remarks than about the individual and voters at whom the remarks are targeted.

Similarly, calling a man who has spent more than two decades risking his life for his country and who served in to two combat theaters "a communist and simply too stupid to even know it..." fits into the same category of exceptionally poor rhetorical techniques and rude tastelessness. Anyone who would engage in such indecorous behavior is demonstrating a distinct shortfall in etiquette education. I am sure that such was not your intention.

Beyond my military service to my country, I have personally acquired two college degrees and five professional certifications, taught college, worked with ambassadors, governors, US Senators, had very successful career in business and run a victorious political campaign. In short, Ms. Monroe, I have earned the right to opine on the state of some else’s political and government knowledge, or lack thereof. When your credentials come close to mine, I will be more receptive to your criticisms. Hopefully, by that time, you will have acquired some more courteous and thoughtful methods of presenting them.

Likewise, the reason I suggested a high school civics text for your edification was the obvious misunderstanding of the basic principles of our representative republican form of government your earlier missive revealed. I apologize if you took umbrage. Nonetheless, this suggestion's purpose was to put the essential foundations in their simplest form before you. Nothing in your most recent communication has changed my assessment of that need.

Regardless, I am grateful that you are an active participant in the "great American experiment of self government." Those citizens who engage with the process and genuinely pursue a broad-based and in depth understanding are the hope of our nation. I encourage you to continue your studies and expand them.

Regards,

John D. Ragan
State Representative

Subject: Fwd: Re: Right to Travel/Drive
Date: Wed 06/22/11 02:01 PM

From the desk of Tona Monroe

Mr. Ragan,

You provided a lot of verbose skirt the issue language in your response below. Ok, I'll tone down my response and ask serious questions, that I hope you'll provide serious answers to.

Please tell me when I ever delegated any authority to the State government to covert my right to travel into a privilege with a new name called driving? The state constitution was ratified in 1870, which was before my time. Furthermore, I being female would not have been able to vote for or against such ratification. I'd have voted no for a variety of reasons, had I been able to vote.

Please provide how you derive authority to covert my right to travel into a state regulated privilege. You said it's within the delegated authority. Prove that I ever delegated such authority to you.

As for your service in the military, please tell me when I ever asked you to serve in the military? I did not, and owe you no respect for such. My husband, father and both of my grand fathers served in the military, but that doesn't make them or the military sacrosanct.

Regarding you college degrees, so what. There are lots of college educated people. That doesn't mean that they make wise life choices or are any more qualified to be state legislators, than those with a high school education from the 10th plank communist "public" schools.

As to our "Republican" form of government, it was still founded in collectivism. "We the people" is collectivism. If 51% ratified the Constitution, they have no right to force the other 49% to live under it. That's still mob rule, even if the people get to elect their Representatives. Just because the thugs making the laws are elected, doesn't mean that our government is pure, good, righteous, correct, moral, or even truly a "Republic". It started out with a few people determining that they wished to force a constitution on the people. Even if just one person objected (say Patrick Henry), that rest have no right to force that upon the one. That is collectivism.

Even if you call our government a Republic, it was still founded on collectivism, which tramples the rights of individuals and is exactly what you're doing by claiming authority that you do not have and giving the title of driving, to the mode of a private automobile. If you don't understand that, please let me know and I'll try to explain it further. Remember that we're told in this public school text books that governments exist at the "consent of the governed" (actually many text books probably don't say that but should). OK, I don't consent to be governed. Now that you have notice of my lack or withdraw of consent, please tell me how you derive collective government (which is not a Republic in the purest sense of the word) authority over me.

I await your response. Let freedom ring!

---

Right to Drive? Defiant Saudi women get behind wheel to protest ban on women drivers

In USA everyone is banned from driving under penalty of arrest or death, unless they sign a contract to waive their constitutional rights and purchase an internal passport contract...

RIYADH (AFP) – Defiant Saudi women got behind the wheels of their cars Friday in response to calls for nationwide action to break a traditional ban unique to the ultra-conservative kingdom.

The call spread through Facebook and Twitter is the largest en masse action since November 1990, when 47 Saudi women were arrested and severely punished after demonstrating in cars.

Forty-two women took part in Friday's protest, according to the Facebook campaign page Women2drive, which said none were arrested, one was given a traffic ticket and that two others were escorted home.

A woman said she was stopped by a policeman in Mecca who confiscated her mobile phone and those of her passengers but made no effort to take her to a police station.

"We've just returned from the supermarket. My wife decided to start the day by driving to the store and back," columnist Tawfiq Alsaif said on his Twitter page.
One of the women, Maha al-Qahtani, tweeted that she drove down one of the capital Riyadh's main arteries.

"I took King Fahd Road and then Olaya Street, along with my husband, I decided that the car for today is mine," Qahtani said on Twitter.

"This is a right for women that is not banned by any law or religion... I went out to establish this right, so that it would be up to me to drive or not," she told AFP by telephone.

Her husband Mohammed al-Qahtani tweeted that she carried some of her personal belongings to be "ready to go to prison without fear."

Businesswoman Azza al-Shamassi told AFP she took her six-year-old twins for a drive "to buy them sweets."

"I was scared but if all the women started driving I would feel reassured."

A handful of women uploaded video footage of themselves driving, while some said they passed police patrols without being stopped, in what could be an attempt by authorities to avoid embarrassment as the campaign attracted global media attention.
A woman started the posting with a video of her driving after midnight as the first woman to take up the protest. Veiled, she drove along nearly empty main roads until she parked at a supermarket.

"All that we need is to run our errands without depending on drivers," said the unnamed woman in the video. "I believe that the society is ready to welcome us."
Police patrols were at normal levels on the sleepy streets of Riyadh on Friday, the first day of the Muslim weekend, an AFP photographer reported.

Many Saudi women had pledged on Facebook and Twitter to answer the call to defy the deeply entrenched ban.

But instead of staging demonstrations, which are strictly banned in the absolute monarchy, women with driving licences obtained abroad were encouraged to take individual action.

Veteran women's rights activist Wajiha al-Huwaidar told AFP she did not expect a huge turnout as hoped for by sympathisers abroad because of the severe response by officials to women who have taken the lead in recent weeks.

"I do not expect something big as people abroad imagine," she said, adding that jailing activist Manal al-Sherif and others has scared some women off.

Sharif, a 32-year-old computer scientist, found herself behind bars for two weeks last month after driving in the Eastern Province and posting footage of her actions on the Internet.

Six other women were also briefly detained after being caught learning to drive on an empty plot of land in north Riyadh.

Women in Saudi Arabia face an array of constraints, ranging from having to cover from head to toe in public and needing a male guardian's permission to travel, to having restricted access to jobs because of strict segregation rules.

The main Facebook page campaign, dubbed Women2Drive, says the action will keep going "until a royal decree allowing women to drive is issued."

"Saudi Arabian authorities must stop treating women as second-class citizens and open the kingdom?s roads to women drivers," Amnesty International said Thursday.

There is no law banning women from driving in the oil-rich kingdom, but the interior ministry imposes regulations based on a fatwa, or religious edict, stipulating women should not be permitted to drive.

But the society that is constrained by strict Islamic rules on segregation is not all that welcoming despite many supportive statements.

A counter Facebook group was created urging men to beat every woman they spot behind the wheel.

The last mass protest against the ban was held in November 1990 when a group of women stunned Saudi men by driving around Riyadh in 15 cars before being arrested.
The women were provoked at the time by the sight of US female soldiers who were taking part in the first Gulf War driving military vehicles freely in their own country while they are banned.

---

Feds demand farmers get CDL driver licenses -- Proposed rule on farms called ‘absurd’

But govt highway workers are exempt from driver license and vehicle registration on public highways

A new rule being proposed by the federal Department of Transportation would require farmers to get commercial drivers licenses.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is a part of DOT, wants to adopt standards that would reclassify all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles, officials said. Likewise, the proposal, if adopted, would require all farmers and everyone on the farm who operates any of the equipment to obtain a CDL, they added.

The proposed rule change would mean that anyone who drives a tractor or operates any piece of motorized farming equipment would be required to pass the same tests and complete the same detailed forms and logs required of semi-tractor trailer drivers.

Drivers would keep logs of information including hours worked and miles traveled. Vehicles would be required to display DOT numbers. A CDL in Virginia costs $64 for eight years, or $8 per year, not including the cost of an instructional class and the written test.

If the DOT reclassifies farm vehicles and implements as commercial vehicles, the federal government will have regulatory control over the nation’s farm workers, estimated at over 800,000, by requiring them to have commercial drivers licenses.

That possibility worries county farmers and others in Halifax County interested in agriculture.

“I have a CDL, but very few farmers have one,” said Nathalie farmer Ronnie Waller. “This is just another bureaucratic hurdle for the farmer.

“It’s hard enough fighting Mother Nature, insects and all…now we have to fight the federal government,” he added. “We’re getting more rammed down our throats, and I could see repercussions across the nation. This move is another inane gesture in my opinion,” Waller concluded.

Bruce Pearce, Halifax County Soil and Water Conservation district manager, agrees with Waller.

“It’s absurd, we’re being regulated out of business,” Pearce said. “I can see where you need to take precautions if you take these things on the interstate.”

Pearce said driving a tractor on a road is not like driving a semi-tractor trailer on the highway.

“If it passes, there will be a lot of citations written,” he said. “It’ll create a financial burden on the farmer.

“Many farm workers are migrant workers, and they don’t have drivers licenses,” he said.

“If this thing passes, it would be detrimental to the agriculture business,” said Jason Fisher, Halifax County Extension agent for Forestry and Natural Resources. “They’re going to get a bigger fight from other places.

“It would be stifling to agriculture,” he said. “For the producers here, we’re looking to do things to help them maintain their farms. CDLs would mean additional costs to the farmers.”

Scott Crowder, Halifax County Farm Bureau president, agrees with Fisher.
“I think it’s absurd,” he said. “It’s just more federal bureaucracy and another infringement on small business.”

Crowder said farm tractors and other machinery on county roads is a common sight in most rural areas.

“When you live in a rural community seeing farm equipment on the road is just something that’s a part of life,” he said. “If this thing passes, it will create more strain on small business, and that’s what farmers are. It will affect their bottom line. Call your congressman and senators,” he concluded.

---

The Case Against Driver’s Licenses

That little plastic laminated card you’ve got in your wallet or purse – you know, the state’s permission slip for operating a motor vehicle? Ever stop to reflect how peripheral the driving part of a driver’s license is?

Because, of course, a driver’s license is in fact our national ID card.

It’s extremely hard to function in modern society without this national ID card – even if you never get behind the wheel. You can’t open a bank account, cash a check, visit the doctor, vote, board an airplane or even get a job without one.

Or at least, it is very difficult to do these things without one.

And none of these things, as such, have anything to do with the operation of a motor vehicle.

If it were merely a driver’s license, the main issue would be whether we’re sufficiently competent to get behind the wheel. There would be a meaningful test of one’s ability to handle a car. An actual road test on an actual road, in traffic – not the perfunctory drive around the cones in the DMV parking lot (and even that is only required of new/first-time applicants in most states) preceded by a sixth-grade-level written (well, touch-screen video) test of one’s knowledge of The Law.

A medium-smart Baboon could pass this test with a little coaching. Few ever fail it – baboons or otherwise. Most of us snicker at the absurdity of it. But it is only absurd from the perspective that assumes they are testing our ability to drive.

Rather, the object of the exercise is ascertaining our identity – in order that we may be kept track of via the interlocking system of data acquisition, indexing, recording and cross-referencing that is the Matrix of modern society.

It is about information – and control.

If it were not, “driver’s licenses” would not be linked to one’s Social Security number – the government-issued ear tag every calf (oops, citizen) is issued at birth. The SS number, in turn, is the number the government uses to make sure you pay your taxes, to keep track of where you work (and how much you earn), where you live, whom you marry, whether you have children (each of them to be issued their own ear tag in turn) and so on – all of which, again, have nothing to do with your competence as a driver.

But just try to get a “driver’s license” without presenting a Social Security card.

They will also likely want your birth certificate, a document (with your SS number) from your bank, or your mortgage holder, or something along those lines. Then, just to be sure, they will obtain “biometric” information – a fingerprint in some cases or merely a special photo that maps your face so that the Panopticon (those cameras that are increasingly everywhere) can register your presence and record your presence wherever you happen to be – which most of the time, of course, will be somewhere that’s not in your car.

I go too far?

Then consider the fact that even non-drivers must obtain what amounts to the same national ID card in order to be able to do the things mentioned up above. They must show up at the Department of Motor Vehicles and provide the same items – SS number and other documents confirming that number. They will then be biometrically cataloged, just like the other cows (er, “drivers”).

No one escapes the national ID card unless they are “off the grid” – a person who exists outside the system, as a de facto (if not de jure) outlaw.

Too far, you say?

Then try to cross the border, or board an airplane without your national ID card – or (lately) even attend a professional football game. Or buy cough syrup at Wallymart.

Your ID will be demanded.

Even a person merely walking down the street, having committed no crime, can be compelled to produce his ID. And if that person lacks an ID, that person will very likely be arrested on the spot and held until his identity is ascertained.

This is the reality of America.

You must have permission to move. You do not move freely.

Even if you are walking.

Eric Peters is the author of the books Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs. He covers transportation news and the car industry from a libertarian perspective. Visit his website.

---

LAPD Chief Beck backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

By Joel Rubin and Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times

February 23, 2012
Wading into a divisive, politically charged debate, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said Wednesday that California should issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

The chief becomes one of the most prominent local figures to support the idea that state lawmakers have battled over repeatedly in the last 15 years. And Beck's stance is certain to further inflame critics who are already angry at the chief for his efforts to liberalize rules on how his officers impound the cars of unlicensed drivers.

"My personal belief is that they should be able to" have licenses, Beck said in response to a question during a meeting with Times' reporters and editorial writers. "The reality is that all the things that we've done — 'we' being the state of California — over the last 14, 16 years have not reduced the problem one iota, haven't reduced undocumented aliens driving without licenses. So we have to look at what we're doing. When something doesn't work over and over and over again, my view is that you should reexamine it to see if there is another way that makes more sense."

Beck said he does not believe licenses for illegal immigrants should be identical to standard licenses. Saying "it could be a provisional license, it could be a non-resident license," he acknowledged that state officials would have to find ways to address widely held concerns that giving licenses to people who are in the country illegally could make it easier for terrorists to go undetected.

Such concerns, however, were outweighed for Beck by what he said would be improved safety on California's roads and the ability of police to identify the people they encounter. "Why wouldn't you want to put people through a rigorous testing process? Why wouldn't you want to better identify people who are going to be here?" he said.

Beck, for example, said he expected the number of hit-and-run accidents would decrease if illegal immigrants were licensed, because they would not have to fear being caught without a license at accidents.

In coming out in favor of licenses for illegal immigrants, Beck echoed his predecessor, Chief William J. Bratton, who also voiced support for the idea. Beck signaled a willingness to use his sway as a respected law enforcement leader to lobby for changes in state law that prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving licenses. "I want to be able to move this issue," he said.

Asked whether he would be permitted in his capacity as police chief to, for example, testify in support of the idea at a legislative hearing, Beck said he had "to follow the lead of the city's elected officials. The mayor is pretty good with me on that. I know he would support me doing that." Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did not respond to calls for comment.

In a brief interview, Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich joined Beck, calling it "a matter of public safety." Issuing licenses to illegal immigrants, he said, would help ensure that people on the road were capable drivers, although he added that insurance regulations would need to be tightened to combat uninsured drivers. Trutanich said he first voiced his position on licenses last year in La Opinion.

Beck's comments were embraced quickly by state Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), who has been involved in repeated attempts since 1998 to pass a state law allowing licenses for illegal immigrants. The LAPD, he said, "is extraordinary … in that they have not allowed themselves to be politicized on the question of public safety vs. immigration. They truly put public safety first."

Critics of expanded rights for illegal immigrants were equally quick to condemn Beck for speaking out on the license issue. Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, challenged Beck's notion that allowing illegal immigrants to have licenses would improve road safety, saying the move would "represent a threat to public safety and national security." He added that issuing the licenses would be "providing a gold-plated membership card into society for people who are not here legally."

Beck's stance on the issue stems from his push in recent months to make controversial changes in the LAPD's vehicle impound rules for unlicensed drivers. Because illegal immigrants cannot receive licenses in California, they are presumed to make up a disproportionate percentage of the state's unlicensed drivers and, Beck believes, have been unfairly affected by the current impound protocols.

Under Beck's proposed changes, officers would continue to impound the cars of unlicensed drivers, but allow those who have auto insurance, a legitimate form of identification and no previous convictions for unlicensed driving to avoid a 30-day hold that carries stiff fees and fines. Drivers would also avoid having their cars impounded if a licensed driver was in the car or able to arrive "immediately."

The proposed changes set off an angry protest from police union officials and some Angelenos, who argued that the changes would reward people for breaking the law and allow potentially dangerous drivers to remain on the roads — claims that Beck rebutted. The department is delaying the new changes until city officials can review a recent legal opinion from state lawyers that questioned the legality of the moves.

The current battle over licenses for illegal immigrants dates to the late 1990s, when Cedillo and others picked up the issue. In 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill that gave illegal immigrants the right to licenses, but the move was so unpopular that it helped spur the campaign to recall Davis. With Davis ousted and opponents threatening a statewide referendum to repeal the law, Cedillo said he and other supporters agreed to repeal the license law. Incoming Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to support a new law that included tighter restrictions and identification requirements, but went on to veto those laws multiple times, according to Cedillo.

Cedillo said he plans to introduce legislation again before he is termed out of office at the end of the year. Gov. Jerry Brown has expressed opposition to such a law.

---

THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). HUCKEBY WAS ALSO CAUGHT ON VIDEO SPEEDING AT 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON, WITHOUT THE MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN REQUIRED FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011