It’s about time; Oklahoma is proposing legislation to protect drivers who run protestors carrying their anarchy into the roadways of that state. Other states such as Indiana and Florida pursuing similar protections, which is a perfect thing and long overdue. We have witnessed many riots over the last several years, especially the race-baiting Democrats who have been engaged. With them, it’s been quite a show; they were the ones who were responsible for slavery and fighting to keep it in place. Now to cover that crime, they seek to control people of color another way. They are obliged all too often with riots in the streets every time Democrats find they need a diversion from their many crimes and liabilities derived from legislative errors. Many of these protests are just thinly disguised attempts to exert Marxism into American society. Hence, their target is always commerce, which is why these mobs have been seeking to shut down our nation’s highways. On several occasions, panicked drivers being forced to sit in traffic as these mobs destroy their property in terrifying ways have tried to drive through the attackers harming and even killing them. For the drivers, not only did they have their property destroyed and had to sit through a terrifying occasion, but then they end up prosecuted for using their car as a deadly weapon. It is hardly fair, and justice has been desperately needed.
Thankfully, states like Oklahoma are providing that justice. While nobody wants anybody to get hurt, no protestor should ever expect their free speech to harm other people’s liberty, specifically their right to commerce. The moment that any protestor affects the individual lives of other people, such as showing up at their homes and playing loud music or chanting through a bullhorn to keep the occupants inside awake, we are then dealing with a disturbance of the peace situation. The violators have then surrendered their constitutional protections of free speech and should then be arrested and prosecuted. That is the same with protestors who have disrupted the meals of their targets in public. Those protests are then disturbance of the peace violations and need to be met with aggressive action. The occupants of a restaurant are there to pay for a nice meal. It is their right and privilege. Robbing that experience from people to usher in some protest is not acceptable and not part of the ground rules of a free society. The protestors may be free to speak their mind, even if it’s wrong. But they do not have a right to rob other people of enjoyment. Whatever legal jargon might allow for a gray spot in interpretation requires clarity quickly, which, thankfully, these states mentioned are beginning to do.
Now protestors might argue that taking away their right to get people’s attention will weaken their ability to get their point across. That is not the problem of a society of commerce. That is the problem of the protestor. If the protestor has a good point, people will follow them. If people think of the protestors as an inconvenience, they will be ignored, and their points glazed over. That is how battles in a free-market economy are conducted. Nobody has a right to dominate the minds and thoughts of others. However, that’s not what the protestors want. If we read the many books that they have been circulating for years, books such as The Coming Insurrection, Mao’s Little Red Book, and Rules for Radicals, it’s clear they want Marxism disguised as fairness. So, they don’t care at all about individual rights, and they openly seek to destroy unregulated commerce. And to deal with protestors legally in this regard, we can’t allow ourselves to think that we are protecting free speech when in all reality, we are working against all the other rights of the Constitution.
It is a basic premise in our society that if people are walking around on railroad tracks or a highway, their safety is not the responsibility of other people. Suppose they put themselves in danger by being within the means of commerce of any kind, boat, plane, car, train—anything, that their life is in their own hands. That is true even if there is a mob of hundreds and hundreds of people. It is not the truck driver’s duty to stop the work and delay shipment of their product from one place to another because many protestors decided to bring their gripes to the truck driver’s life and alter his reality. While traveling at a moderate rate of speed, the truck driver should be unable to slow down and move right on through the mob unimpeded. If there are injuries or deaths, then that obligation rests on the people in the road, not the drivers, to have one more thing to worry about. If animals cross into a road, which could be understood since they don’t know better, they are struck all the time. It is understood generally that the right to commerce is more important than an accident from some creature, unfortunately, being in the road when a car comes along. However, in the case of humans, they do know better. Now they may be impaired by drugs, or they may be sick with political ideology. Regardless, they are still ill of mind and prone to destruction if they end up in the road and are hit by a car or truck while protesting.
For many years, these ideas have been generally understood. However, in our now overly litigious society, we see challenges to this premise. Many drivers have been stopping and yielding to these protestors because they are more afraid of the legal system than the derelicts of destruction that often end up in these mobs. That is why the many state legislators must do as Oklahoma are doing now, making the issue quite specific. Commerce must be a protected right, people’s ability to be free of a protest should they want to be supported. We cannot allow people who wish to bring harm to our constitutional republic to use our rules against us disguised as free speech, but with the intent of violating the whole foundation of our legal system while in the process, which is what has been happening. The challenge has left people feeling defenseless and vulnerable, which should never be the case in a civil society. Because the alternative is that if protesters act with lawlessness, which is their premise when they loot and vandalize during protests, we fight back with lawlessness. I don’t think that’s where we all want to go. It would be better if everyone agreed with the laws, and we could at least have that as a common means of exchange. But putting up with the chaos and aggression against commerce is not an option. Commerce is much more sacred than the feelings of a Marxist minority, or even a majority, should that ever occur. And before open violence between drivers and protests happens, the ground rules need to be clear: what Oklahoma and many other states are now doing, and not a moment too soon.
Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior
Share, subscribe, and see you later,https://rumble.com/embed/vciikp/?pub=3rih5#?secret=bniNjt4gII
Sign up for Second Call Defense at the link below. Use my name to get added benefits.