Republicans are Kill Switching Our Rights

Go to Article

Nowadays, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) isn’t much liked outside his district. He’s butted heads with President Trump, incurring the president’s wrath. Trump is trying to unseat him in the midterms. MAGA grassroots are with Trump, unsurprisingly. Fair enough, but setting aside personalities and squabbles, Massie deserves praise.

Last January, the representative tried to amend the U.S. House’s version of the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations bill. He wanted to defund a Biden-era mandate requiring installation of AI-guided “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in new cars and trucks, likely starting with 2027 models. Meaning, installing kill switches in vehicles so when the technology detects driver impairment — or is so convinced — it shuts off the vehicle’s engine.

The mandate has been in the news recently because the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was supposed to finalize rules by the end of 2024. The technology’s glitches forced an extension, but the mandate is a go with manufacturers gearing up.

The good news is that 160 Republicans and — believe it or not — four Democrats voted in favor of Massie’s amendment. The bad news: 57 Republicans joined 211 Democrats to keep the funding. Evidently, Speaker Mike Johnson let Republicans “vote their consciences.” So, four dozen plus Republicans gave thumbs up to a new approach to tyranny.

Continued funding is bad news because, aside from the “What’s not to like” claims that the technology will reduce drinking-related — and other driver-impaired — accidents and fatalities, it’s another Big Mother intrusion into our lives. Why “Big Mother?” Because in our feminized society, there’s a near-obsession with mitigating risks by trying to child-proof life, much to the detriment of our rights.

GOP mommies joined a lot of Orwellian Democrats to fund another episode of “Government Knows Best.” Blue Colorado is rolling out AVIS (Automated Vehicle Identification System). The system tracks how fast a vehicle goes from point to point. Exceed the speed limit, and a $75 ticket is automatically sent to the owner. Of course, Big Momma just wants to reduce crashes and save lives. It’s always for our own good.

Will installing anti-drunk devices in cars do the trick? No technology is foolproof, whatever the claptrap we’re fed. That goes for AI, too, which is drenched in utopian luster. Imperfect humans invent imperfect everything. AI self-perfecting over time is science fantasy.

Won’t latter-day Winston Smiths figure out workarounds — like keeping older vehicles, which the law grandfathers? Maybe Big Mother might remedy that by mandating retrofits?

Or Winston Smiths may find ways of detaching onboard devices. The mandate is crafted similarly to current law about disconnecting airbags: A warning light would trigger and stay on. When inspection time rolls around, the vehicle will fail. The aim is to make the mandate self-policing.

Can’t system misreads of drivers’ conditions lead to dangers? In fact, practical objections to installing kill switches abound.

At X, an influencer named “Eagle Wings” had this to say about the pitfalls:

The “Kill Switch” in your car could get you KILLED. Imagine a woman escaping a violent attacker — heart pounding, adrenaline surging. But her car refuses to start because the system detects “impairment.” Imagine a farmer bleeding from a machinery accident, trying to drive himself to help. His truck shuts down because the AI thinks he’s drunk. This isn’t science fiction. It’s the real-world nightmare of the federal Kill Switch mandate. They sold it as a “drunk driving” fix. What they didn’t tell you: it will punish the innocent when seconds matter most. [Snip]

Concluded country singer and conservative influencer John Rich at X: “Wife goes into labor, husband is wild eyed and panicky, truck won’t start because commie AI settings decide you’re not ‘fit to drive.’ The analogies are endless…”

Or imagine mistakenly driving into an Antifa-fueled anti-ICE protest. Your car is swarmed by hooligans. You’re zigzagging, making a mad dash to escape. Sorry. Your car sputters to a stop. How fast can you sprint?

Maybe you need to flee a tornado? Yes, that happens. Oops. Your onboard device cuts your engine. Better find a ditch quick.

Having to sacrifice some innocents to save zillions of lives is an acceptable cost, isn’t it, claim utilitarians. Just hope you and yours aren’t among the sacrificed.

This can’t be stressed enough, though: Practical objections alone won’t scuttle the mandate. Technology can be improved, advocates will counter. Bugs can be fixed.

Central to this fight is rights versus intrusive government. Are we a free people with obligations to act responsibly — and rightly penalized by fair laws when we don’t — or are we children who must be subjugated for our benefit? Are we to accept the argument that because some among us act irresponsibly means that most of us must forfeit our rights for the “greater good?”

Don’t get caught up arguing about the mandate’s good intentions. The way to the gulag is paved with plenty of those. If a mandate has merit, chances are auto manufacturers would elect to incorporate change into vehicles, based on anticipated or real consumer demand. Government coercion is unnecessary.

Will installing anti-drunk technology fully satisfy proponents? Or can we expect more reasons why the government must exert greater levels of control? The same people after your guns are also after your car or truck keys, too.

Perhaps driving is far too dangerous altogether, the mommies and statists will next argue. Public transportation suffices. The dilapidating and crime-troubled D.C. Metro is a stellar example of first-rate public transit. Better to live in well-policed blue cities, anyway, where people can walk most places (just not after dark).

Slashing private vehicle ownership would be a big step toward ending the scourge of “manmade” climate change. Not only would that save lives — so would ending abortions, not incidentally — but cutting vehicle emissions saves the planet. The planet is so much healthier without plastic straws — right?

As Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin in an Appropriations hearing last week, “You do not have the right to say that climate change does not exist.” Zeldin does have that right, particularly when “manmade” is appended. DeLauro is free to hawk bogus science and her pseudo-religious belief, but Zeldin — and us — are free to reject both.

With nearly 280 million private and commercial vehicles crisscrossing the nation, DeLauro would be orgasmic if Big Mother cut vehicle ownership.

The mandate doesn’t connect anti-impairment devices to government monitoring technology. But an amendment could always be added. New autos are equipped with telematics, which collect and transmit data. Connecting an anti-drunk device to existing equipment isn’t a great leap. If advocates succeed with the mandate, you can bet your new Ford F-150 that government monitoring comes next.

The good news is that the Massie amendment has sparked a firestorm of protests among conservative and libertarian social media influencers and the grassroots. If publicity builds momentum toward killing the kill-switch, chalk that up as a major battle won.

Be warned, though. The war never ends. The mommies and statists are always with us. For them, defeats are temporary. Their ploy is to pluck at heartstrings while ladling up buckets of guilt to whittle away our rights.

Liberty isn’t lost all at once, as a rule. It occurs piecemeal. Decades of experience should teach us. The slope becomes slippery when people trade freedom for promises of greater safety and security — promises that fall short while shrinking our rights.

Vigilance and defending rights are the obligations of free people, day to day, generation to generation. It’s always a choice.

J. Robert Smith can be found at X. His handle is @JRobertSmith1. At Gab, @JRobertSmith. Also at Truth Social, @JRobertSmith. He blogs occasionally at Flyover.

[H/T American Thinker]



Comment on this Article Via Your Disqus Account