SB 207- One Step Closer To Civil War?

The insects infesting Lansing, at the behest of their globalist masters, continue to stoke the flames of civil war. Completely ignoring the recent supreme court ruling that denied police the ability to draw blood during traffic stops, the Michigan legislature and head turd Rick Snyder, passed SB 207, which allows state police to take saliva samples from drivers, in certain counties.

Not to worry, these saliva samples will not be taken without probable cause and they will be taken by “drug recognition experts”, and we can all trust the chain of custody and we can all trust the test labs and the test results will be delivered by unbiased, government paid, police stooges,  and you see, this is all done for our safety.  So nothing to see here, move along.

But suppose we did live in OZ and the U.S. Constitution actually did apply to state governments, how does S.B. 207 get around the 5th Amendment?  Even if I’m caught, on video shooting heroin am I then forced to incriminate myself? This is a rhetorical question.  I know, I’ve already lost the argument several times over.  I’m sure there is some court case somewhere that says if there is probably cause the state is entitled to my blood, my saliva, my breath, my soul, hell we have no rule of law anyway and I’m tired of arguing so I’ll get to my point.  I think S.B. 207 is going to bring more police killings to Michigan.

A state trooper is going to pull a driver over and demand a saliva test.  The driver is going to refuse.  The trooper is will then try to arrest the driver.  The driver will refuse.  The trooper will draw his gun.  The driver will already have his drawn.

God help us!


“Live not by lies” -Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

You Betcha! (18)Nuh Uh.(2)

  8 comments for “SB 207- One Step Closer To Civil War?

  1. JD
    July 18, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Whether you agree with the law or's the law.

    Painting the above scenario in any realistic manner given that fact is beyond irresponsible and certain to stoke the type of discourse that this nation would like to forget save the brave lives lost/ruined already forcing us NOT to (ever).

    We got that law because not one single political force in this state protested it with everything that they could muster given the consequences for our personal freedoms.

    It was the largest civil rights trial balloon successfully launched in Michigan since the last saliva tests were approved for those accused but not convicted not that long ago.

    We 'wanted' it and will now evidently live with it ..period.

    You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(7)
    • Sark
      July 19, 2016 at 10:22 am

      Really? WE wanted it? Your political party would be so proud of you, regardless of affiliation? You should be reminded the founding fathers included the right to bear arms. The primary reason was for defense against our government!!

      You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Arthur
    July 18, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    Painting a scenario is irresponsible but passing a "law" that violates a person's natural rights that are enshrined in a document that are allegedly the supreme law of the land and asking policemen to enforce at a time when tensions are at very high and police are getting shot almost daily, is not. interesting.

    You Betcha! (4)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. JD
    July 18, 2016 at 11:12 pm


    The document that you reference (in my opinion) means absolutely nothing when laws are passed ignoring same in a vacuum of silence.

    Once legislators knew full well that their constituents could be easily assaulted in full view of (literally) the entire world not to mention the largest security force ever assembled in recent Michigan history (Right to Work during the exact same election cycle 4 years ago)..hauling citizens off the streets and robbing their DNA for merely 'looking funny' wasn't necessarily a stretch given their often near unanimous voting blocs.

    We deserve what we receive (now) after not IMMEDIATELY fighting back (hard) for our children's future right to assemble and speak peacefully at our Capital or anywhere else in Michigan; let alone for them to be hauled off their streets for no reason whatsoever (today).

    Law enforcement (at the street level) wasn't the villain during Right To Work any more than the average beat officer will be when this next most egregious opportunity for constitutional abuse spreads like wildfire (as intended).

    And the average (young) comparatively (grossly) underpaid street officer of the future will shoulder this 'new' community relationship burden (again) all by his or herself without a fraction of the previously awarded benefits (for decades) to boot.

    You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(3)
  4. Arthur
    July 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    "The document (constitution) means absolutely nothing"? You have it exactly. Why should any laws mean anything to anybody?

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • JD
      July 19, 2016 at 4:00 pm


      When you quote another (as in: ".......the constitution means absolutely nothing.........") would be helpful if you (minimum) included the ".................." portion on either side of the quoted portion that you are intentionally attempting to showcase out of context.

      Michiganders (or more accurately gray-haired Gadsden/'pocket 'constitution' waivers) chose (twice) to IGNORE the issue of random saliva testing over the past two years. The issue didn't even warrant a 'blip' on 'constitutionalist' radar during the VIP only/big money/exclusive 'conventions' held while these very issue(s) were red hot.

      Reread the "...vacuum of silence." portion of my statement which you conveniently left off of my quotation to possibly gain some context as to why this law was forced on us in the first place ('constitutionally' or not).

      You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(1)
      • Jack
        July 19, 2016 at 4:55 pm

        Perhaps Arthur was under the impression that the constitution meant what it said and so did the Yagodas who took an oath to uphold it. I know, how stupid. Those damn Bible thumping, Gadsden waving, constitution reading, redneck, jackasses.

        You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
  5. Sue Schwartz
    July 19, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    The Sunday after this law was passed, I talked with Larry Inman, a state rep who voted for this. I told him my concerns about check points. He absolutely assured me that the cheek swab would only be utilized upon a suspected DUI. Since then, the police, armed with new-found money to test this new law, is looking to set up check points--which, I might add, SCOTUS has found illegal.

    If you are caught in this check point situation, you will be told that your signature on your driver's license allows this Bunk!!! The police cannot legally even run a LEIN on you unless they possess reasonable cause, a lower threshold than probable cause. They cannot search your car without a warrant unless, of course, you agree to it. Demand a warrant--demand a blood test at their expense, demand your rights. While I support police, I cannot support any compromise to constitutional rights,
    and they should not either.

    I have been stopped in the last few years solely because I was the only car on the road, so I must be drunk. One time, when alleged probable cause fell through (lying through his teeth) for pulling me over in the first place, I demanded his shift supervisor immediately come to the scene. This became my mantra until he handed me back my license. I'm sure he reported a crazy lady, thank GOD my gun was not in the car.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *