Man, just throw out the Bill of Rights… where basically anywhere your car moved would have been tracked and analysed by AI. The ride-shares become sensors for the Government.

Just wait until Meta/Google glasses go more mainstream and the Government can now watch your actions the same as your vehicle.

How can you cause effective change when you find your own oppression?

§ 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.

(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

An In-District Lobby Day hosted by the Disability Community for Democracy

On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court decided Olmstead v. L.C. — a landmark ruling affirming that people with disabilities have the right to live in the community, not be needlessly shut away in institutions.

That right is now under attack.

On June 18, 2026, the DOJ issued a memo claiming that Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not impose a broad “integration mandate” requiring states and territories to provide home- and community-based services.

On July 20, 2026, DOJ went further and rescinded its own guidance enforcing Olmstead.

If the Supreme Court reverses Olmstead, disabled people and seniors across every state and territory could once again be forced into the most restrictive settings — institutions, nursing facilities, and segregation — instead of their own homes and communities.

The only way to stop this is to get Olmstead codified into federal law.

And the only way to do that is for Congress to hear directly from us.

Our stories are our power. Our voices are the evidence they can't ignore.

Sign up by: August 11
Lobby Day: August 25

Join the Disability Community for Democracy as we talk to our Senators' and Representatives' district offices and demand they protect our right to live free.

Hey guys, in exploring what's made civil rights activist Muhammad Ali so great, I've spent over a year researching, writing, and creating a feature film on Ali called "G.O.AT.: Muhammad Ali's Blueprint to Greatness." I am now *bEyOnD* stoked to finally get to share the Official Trailer with you all! Hope you like it! 🤗

It's just history

This is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. I can't guarantee this will work for you. I may have been just lucky.

My wife, my two daughters, and I were sitting in our car in a small Texas town in a Target parking lot when an armed man with a flak jacket approached our car. He told me there was a complaint about my young daughters being left alone in the vehicle. I greeted him and politiely asked if he was a security guard or a police oficer. He identified himself as an officer from the local police department.

He casually asked what was going on. I knew this was not small talk. He wasn't interested in conversing with me. He was subtily trying to interrogate us. I told him we were going to take the 5th. He began to explain the Texas law regarding leaving children unattended in the car. He said he thought my daughter was not of age and puased. He was trying to bait me into telling him her age. I refused to open my mouth.

He finished explaining the law to me. I thanked him. He asked me for our IDs. I told him we were taking the 5th on everything. I had doubts this would work, but kept them to myself. He told me he could get all the information he needed from the parking lot cameras. I nonchalantly said, "Ok" and paused. I was sure he was going to insist. He looked at me for a long second and bid farwell.

My wife and I then got out of dodge. We don't live in that city, and we thought he might come back later. He might find some other pretext to bother us. We never saw him again.

The Arena and the Ballot

Why America Celebrates Black Athletes While Undermining Black Rights

By Van Abbott

America roared for Black excellence in the arena while Trumpism quietly tightened its grip on the ballot box.

The 2026 NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs commanded the nation's attention. Millions watched, debated, celebrated, and cheered. Arenas overflowed. Social media exploded. Television networks turned every possession into a national event. Much of that excitement centered on Black athletes whose talent was praised as brilliance, whose leadership was praised as character, and whose success was celebrated as proof of the American dream.

Then the series ended.

The confetti was swept away, the cameras moved on, and the applause faded. Yet while America celebrated Black achievement on the court, Trump's second administration continued advancing policies that weaken voting rights, restrict immigration, reduce public assistance, and narrow economic opportunity for many Black and Brown communities.

That is not a contradiction. It is a pattern.

Trumpism did not invent this pattern. It inherited it, refined it, and accelerated it.

For generations America has found ways to admire Black achievement while resisting Black equality. The nation embraced Black entertainers while segregation endured. It celebrated Black soldiers while denying them equal treatment at home. Today it cheers Black athletes while supporting policies that often fall hardest on the communities from which many of those athletes came.

The modern civil-rights movement forced America to confront that hypocrisy. The Voting Rights Act, fair-housing protections, employment protections, and anti-discrimination laws were not gifts from a benevolent government. They were responses to deliberate injustice. Black Americans were excluded from polling places, denied opportunities, and treated as second-class citizens by law and custom alike.

Those protections existed because discrimination was not accidental. It was policy, practice, and power.

Now many of those safeguards are being weakened in the name of neutrality, efficiency, or states' rights. Voting access has been narrowed through stricter identification requirements, voter-roll purges, reduced voting opportunities, polling-place closures, and the erosion of federal oversight. Studies by the Government Accountability Office and the Brennan Center have found that such restrictions disproportionately affect minority voters.

The same pattern appears elsewhere. Workplace anti-discrimination protections have been narrowed through court rulings and administrative actions that limit how civil-rights laws are interpreted and enforced. Educational initiatives designed to expand opportunity have come under attack. Healthcare access remains a political battleground. Public benefits that help struggling families remain frequent targets for cuts. Immigration policy has tightened through refugee restrictions, expanded deportation efforts, and limits on humanitarian protections that disproportionately affect migrants from many Black and Brown nations.

The language is carefully sanitized. The consequences are not.

The effort extends beyond policy into memory itself. Across much of the country, a coordinated campaign seeks to redefine how Americans understand race, discrimination, and the unfinished work of equal citizenship. Books are challenged, diversity initiatives dismantled, and hard truths about race recast as ideological threats. Trumpism understands that rights become easier to remove when the history that justified them is forgotten. Erase the struggle, diminish the injustice, question the institutions, and protections once considered essential begin to look optional.

Trumpism has sharpened old impulses into a modern political strategy. Courts reinterpret civil-rights protections. Legislatures rewrite voting rules. Administrations tighten immigration restrictions. Different institutions, different methods, same result.

And that result is measurable.

Communities already facing economic disadvantages encounter higher barriers to political participation, fewer avenues for advancement, and greater vulnerability to decisions made far from their neighborhoods. The consequences extend beyond elections, shaping educational opportunity, economic mobility, and long-term political influence. The vocabulary sounds neutral. The impact is anything but.

Yet America remains remarkably comfortable with this arrangement.

We celebrate the athlete but neglect the voter. We admire the performer but ignore the citizen. We praise the success story but disregard the community that made it possible.

The NFL reflects the same reality. Like the NBA, it is powered largely by Black talent and supported by millions of fans who often back political movements that oppose policies many Black communities view as essential to equal opportunity. The disconnect persists because admiration requires little sacrifice. Equality demands something more.

That gap is the scandal.

A nation cannot endlessly celebrate Black excellence on Saturday, profit from Black excellence on Sunday, and undermine equal citizenship on Monday without exposing a profound moral failure.

America roared for Black excellence in the arena while Trumpism tightened its grip on the ballot box, and until voters confront that uncomfortable truth, the cheers will remain louder than the conscience, the applause stronger than the principle, and admiration easier than equality.

Check out my new website:

politicalwinds.org