Red Light Cameras have greased the skids (made the pay to play payments to pols of both parties) for the second wave of assault on taxpayers in Illinois.
How’s this for spinning reality. Under the proposed Illinois law, speeding tickets issued by automated surveillance would be treated as non-moving offenses, like parking tickets and red-light violations, and convictions or guilty pleas would not go on drivers’ records, officials said.
So what used to be a moving offense for moving too fast, is now a non-moving offense. Orwell spins in his grave. It gets even worse.
RedSpeed has deployed their cash in the form of campaign contributions. Plying both sides of the state general assembly aisle, ongoing even as you read this, with bought votes currently at 65 elected senators and representatives and counting. They’ve also hired lobbyist muscle to push their case; connected and convicted lobbyist and former D Representative from Chicago Alfred Ronan of Ronan Potts LLC, whose associate lobbyist is former Elk Grove Township, former appointed (not elected) State Senator Cheryl Axely (R-33 Des Plaines). Ronan is a MiniMe republican version of Rezko. Ronan Potts LLC has an extensive history of it’s own political contributions. Even Roland Burris’ lobby firm Burris & Lebed Consulting, LLC couldn’t keep up with these guys.
Democrat State Sen. Terry Link (D-30 Waukegan) is the shill who sponsored the bill. And chimes right in on cue with the bald faced lie about safety. Does the Democratic Party actually endorse red light cameras as safe? Or are they just marching as told? Amazing what $1,000 in the right pocket can do.
Unknown is how much RedSpeed is investing in the convicted lobbyist Ronan, and what they’re spreading around off radar to make sure speeding cameras get their chance to soak the taxpayers. Year three and counting with campaign contributions to both parties. Now power insider crooks lobbyists.
Again, for all you who can’t or won’t think for yourself, RLC companies like RedSpeed Illinois, RedSpeed USA, RedSpeed International (all the same UK company, really) will tell you they are all about safety, not about revenues. For all of you who can clearly think, and are willing to put in even the slightest of effort to educate yourself, you know the opposite is true.
Nonetheless, here comes phase two of government’s plan to enrich themselves without the consent of those governed, and here’s where I’m starting to feel even revenue is the wrong reason for this abridgment of more than one amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Democrat State Sen. Terry Link (D-30 Waukegan), supporters of cameras, and those duped by a constant bombardment of lies will say hey, no problem, just don’t roll through a red light, or stop over the white line, or go faster than the posted speed limit.
What they avoid talking about is this: red light cameras are an example that the government is no longer our government. Not of, by, and for the people, we’re being given government not of our making and not for our health safety and welfare, but government that pursues its own goals for its own gain, following its own logic, and without the consent of those governed.
The cameras’ supporters, besides making all the usual arguments about “safety” (arguments that unfortunately carry a lot of weight with many
folks), point out that the cameras are a great revenue producer for the state–especially important in these times of great budgetary troubles. Should our government be a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that is free to abrogate the liberties of those whom it supposedly represents–even for money? If the people won’t allow themselves to be honestly taxed enough to support the services they desire (or that the state wishes to provide for them), the state’s response should not be to act like a corporation disingenuously searching for alternative revenue streams. But that is where we are.
For tenths of a penny on the dollar, the general assembly of the state of Illinois is being bought so that investors of traffic camera comapnies like RedSpeed can legally prey upon the populace. Many other arguments can and have been made by the cameras’ opponents, but here, in this case, they focus on the the irrefutable fact that these cameras represents, in nontrivial ways, a grave misconstrual of the proper relationship between a people and their government.