Registered voters in the
State of Michigan, U.S.A.
in alphabetical order
Use this website at your own risk. There is no warranty. This is a privately owned and operated genealogy website using a purchased copy of the Michigan voter list as of 12 May 2017, which is public information. Don’t bother mining data, just download the list for free
About this website ... Home page

Custom Search


Do you support liberty
and justice for all?

     An organized hate group has scheduled events in Michigan to raise money to spend promoting hate crimes. You can address these no-good punks at their own fund-raisers.

     Many civil rights activists are quick to respond if an innocent person is being maliciously mistreated because of his or her race, sex, religion or even sexual orientation. They have some explaining to do if they are silent now.

     The hate group calls itself “Mothers Against Drunk Driving,” but they are not all mothers, and they are not against drunk driving. Their target is everybody born during the past 21 years.

     MADD pushes politicians to use gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate Mr. and Mrs. Twenty into total abstinence from alcoholic beverages, and to intimidate businesses into refusing to sell alcoholic beverages to Mr. and Mrs. Twenty.

     Of course, it is obvious why so many politicians, and Michigan voters, would rather commit this hate crime against persons younger than 21, than impose tougher DWI measures which would apply to themselves. That wouldn’t be fair to the hypocrites, who “can drive better drunk than teenagers can sober.”

     It is not so obvious what motivates the hate-mongering MADD bigots, so let me explain:

     MADD is sponsored by auto makers, who want to perpetuate the intense bureaucratic hostility against persons who don’t buy cars. This hostility is manifested in numerous ways, including traffic lights without crosswalk lights, streets without sidewalks, snow plowed onto sidewalks and left there until it melts in the springtime, and zoning restrictions which prevent walkers from living closer to work. City Hall requires parking lots for new apartment houses, to make walkers pay higher rents.

    Pedestrians are lucky to get white paint marking a crosswalk, while railroad crossings are equipped with clanging bells, flashing lights and descending gates, because the persons who could get hurt are persons in cars, persons who matter. The carnage on the roads was an excuse to raise the drinking age, and then the speed limits were also raised, because speed limits apply to persons who matter.

     The more a young adult drinks alcohol, the more he or she will avoid driving. That person will do more walking and then demand equal rights for pedestrians.

     A serious crackdown on drunk driving, making laws in the U.S.A. comparable to those in other countries, would mean more suspended licenses on any given day, and with more riders, bus companies could extend their hours and routes. Then more young folks could find jobs without buying cars. MADD wants to get these young persons addicted to driving. Our nation’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders, and MADD wants them to show the same depraved indifference to the rights of pedestrians that so many of today’s politicians show. Most voters and politicians don’t give a fire truck about the rights of pedestrians, or the rights of persons born during the past 21 years.

     Some MADD activists, having lost a family member, are desperately trying to pretend their own past DWI crimes are not their own fault, but the fault of a society that was soft on underage drinking. Some cannot even picture somebody drinking alcohol and then not driving, while others cannot live with the fact that, every day, many thousands of persons younger than 21 imbibe and then don’t drive.

     It’s not that they are all morons. It’s just that good, sound, logical reasoning does not support their cause, so they rely on bad reasoning: “Statistical analysis of historical crash data proves that the United States of America ought not to be a free country, with liberty and justice for all, where the citizen decides what to drink, be it water, wine or turpentine, and where the drunk driver is the one who gets punished for drunk driving.”

     MADD will argue that too many young persons have been killed in DWI crashes, which is true. Notice I didn’t say “accidents,” because so many crashes aren’t accidents at all. Well, consider the crash in Burton, Ohio on 2 March 2006. The guilty driver was 47. He was driving drunk (0.26% BAC), driving left of center, speeding, driving under suspension and leading a police chase, but at least he wasn’t drinking under age, a victory for MADD. He crashed head on into a car with three outvoted discrimination victims, but at least he wasn’t buying for them, another victory for MADD. While he collected his eleven prior DUI’s, MADD pushed for sting operations, keg registration laws, counterfeit-resistant ID’s and harsher punishments for being younger than 21. They don’t care about drunk driving, they just hate everybody younger than 21.

     Grace Chamberlain and Andrew Hopkins were both 18, and they never got a chance to drink alcohol legally. A 19-year-old man in the back seat spent weeks in Metro Hospital, getting his face put back together with plates and screws.

     Outraged and stunned, the victims’ parents, and fellow students at Hiram College went to Columbus to lobby for a crackdown. They got a tougher repeat offender law introduced, overwhelmingly passed and signed by the governor. Citizens who want results don’t need MADD.

     While you’re lobbying, don’t forget all the other senseless crashes where alcohol was not a factor.

     Do resist the temptation to debate the enemies of liberty on their statistics. Sure, they get to include Grace and Andy in their numbers of persons age 15 through 20 killed in alcohol-related crashes. Sure, they have data that reflected lowering the drinking age at a time when cops let drunk drivers go home and sleep it off. Sure, if you saw a crash, you would have to note the mile marker and drive to the next exit as precious seconds ticked away. Maybe there’s a gas station with a pay telephone. Too bad the gas station is closed, and the pay telephone is inside it. Nowadays, usually somebody is on line to a 9-1-1 operator within 60 seconds of impact. Sure, these days more of the fatal drunk driving crashes are listed as hit-and-run crashes because tougher penalties get more drunk drivers to flee the scene, and there’s no proof of intoxication by the time they get arrested.

     Insurance companies classify people. It’s bad enough that a good driver, such as a single man with a clean record, has to pay the same as a married woman with two moving violations. He has to pay higher rates, for the ones who drive like jackasses. However, there’s a world of difference between insurance and liberty. For one thing, you can avoid insurance by doing without a car, but they still inflict the drinking age on you.

     Can crime statistics justify a dusk-to-dawn curfew based on race? Or should each person be judged on his or her own decisions?

     Liberty is not a gift from the government, doled out at the discretion of bureaucrats. Liberty is an unalienable right which no government can justly infringe. Liberty can only be defined meaningfully as the freedom to do whatever does not violate anybody’s rights. Any other definition is meaningless because, under such other definitions, the government could simply manufacture documents reducing your rights. Unalienable rights, by definition, preempt the Rule of Law whenever the two things conflict with each other. Drinking alcoholic beverages does not violate anybody’s rights. Even when Prohibition was imposed by the Eighteenth Amendment, orthodox libertarian extremists maintained that governments cannot acquire authority by manufacturing documents, regardless of what words are inscribed thereon.

     Unalienable rights inhere in the individual. Each person is a distinct individual and a distinct transaction. The only relevant statistics are the ones about that individual, not crimes committed by other persons. Eliminate drunk driving, and there will be no teenagers killed in drunk driving crashes.
Thought Experiment
Suppose the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) strikes down the underage drinking statutes. What do you think State legislators would do?

If you said they would scramble to pass tougher measures against DUI, then you just admitted that they impose underage drinking laws instead of passing tougher measures against DUI.

     The hate-mongering MADD bigots can be found and addressed at their events on public property:

     26 August 2017 in Rochester, Oakland County, Michigan CLICK

     16 September 2017 in Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan CLICK

     Tell the businesses sponsoring these events what you think of their promoting hate crimes against persons younger than 21. If you are approached by somebody planning to participate in one of these events, asking for your donation, ask that person if he or she is aware that MADD hates everybody born during the past 21 years.
The drinking age is a
Don’t promote hate crimes.