MRCTV readers and viewers familiar our ongoing coverage of the drunk-on-power federal government’s new $1.2 TRILLION so-called “Infrastructure Bill” know that its pork handouts are not only beyond numerous, they aren’t in any way constitutional.
The new “infrastructure” bill also contains massive new fascist “regulations” that not only will have terrible practical effects on our wallets, not only are anti-constitutional, but also are immoral – threats against peaceful people.
For the Dems and RINOS, it’s “our way or the highway” – that that means you won’t get on the highway with a new car in 2026 unless you pass a federally imposed breathalyzer test, and that automakers won’t be able to sell vehicles that don’t contain them.
Oh, and the Washington Post loves the idea.
Tailored with a headline speculating about the wondrous salvation the mandate could provide -- and not on the fact that this is sheer fascism, pure command-and-control thuggery -- the WAPO proclaims: “New technology mandate in infrastructure bill could significantly cut drunken driving deaths”
New cars would be required to have technology to stop drunk people from driving under a mandate Congress approved as part of the sweeping infrastructure bill — a step that could significantly reduce one of the leading causes of crash-related deaths.
But, hey, it’s not necessarily a tube into which one has to blow, so what’s the problem? You people who want to allow your neighbors to live free – you’re so picky. This is just a sensor or camera system being imposed on you and car makers. It’s all cool. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet – even though every one of those has been slammed in some way by central government hacks over the past nine decades.
The bill calls on NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to finalize rules for the technology within three years, then give automakers at least two years for production. It also gives officials room to conclude that timeline isn’t feasible, which could prompt a delay. NHTSA in the past has struggled to meet congressional deadlines.
Isn’t it great, that way the WAPO’s Duncan brings up the really, really “big problem” here? That the NHTSA “has struggled to meet congressional deadlines”?
Many states already require breathalyzer interlocks for drunken-driving offenders, but experts expect the approach implemented under the mandate in the bill would be different.
'It’s entirely passive,' Otte (Alex Otte, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving) said. “For those being safe, it won’t change the relationship with their car in any way.
So, hey. If it’s “entirely passive”, it must be not only completely innocuous for drivers, but a complete positive, with no net negatives at all.
Perhaps they think we will be “passive” in accepting such compulsive claptrap.
The fact is that this is a mandate – not only on drivers, but on manufacturers. It will change the environment inside a car, and change the cost of manufacture. It also likely will increase the cost of “inspection” since a new component will be tested every time the government sucks money out of drivers to get their cars “inspected.”
And the predicate, the arrogance, of the politicians TELLING auto makers how to build their cars is insufferable. If they want cars built a certain way, they can start their own businesses and compete, peacefully, in the market.
If this sounds incredibly dystopian, it is. If it sounds unreal, sadly, it is not.
Since the federal government under the insufferable Richard Nixon introduced so-called “CAFÉ” (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for gas mileage in 1975, auto-makers have repeatedly adjusted to government mandates by using lighter metals on smaller cars (heavier trucks can’t accept a lot of lighter metals) to keep that “average” for their entire vehicle lines within the federal “standard” for gas mileage.
But the WAPO doesn’t seem to care about that.
They also don’t mention that federal mandates on auto-makers that imposed passenger-side airbags in their new cars saw many children killed in what should have been relatively minor accidents. The airbags deployed, broke necks, and, in some cases, decapitated the children.
But the feds didn’t remove the mandate. They saw parents forced to put kids in the backseat.
So this is yet another dystopian mandate – from a government that has neither the constitutional or moral power to do it.
What will Americans do?