[MoLiCo] Fw: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again
It is getting to the point of not saying can you believe this?. There is so much information on this type of problem that I now believe it. Linda - Forwarded Message From: James Hornaday Jr. rail...@sbcglobal.net To: ty...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 8:57:26 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Tom: Well, for one thing, the trucks and drivers registered in Canada are under comparable restrictions and laws as the US. All of the drivers from Canada (with the possible exception of Quebec) speak English. Most of the French Quebec drivers can speak English as well. They just speak French when they are in Quebec. I seriously doubt the regulations in Mexico are strict enough, and if they were, the corruption in enforcement down there would allow stinky trucks and inadequately trained drivers to go across the border and go anywhere. The amount of nasty stuff coming into the US from Canada is miniscule compared to what's coming across the southern border. I see trucks with Canadian licenses driving on the interstates. About 1 in 100. They don't bother me at all. If you want to stop stuff coming in from Mexico, you'd have to shut down the Kansas City Southern RR at the border. Nobody's complaining (that I'm aware of) about that mode of traffic. I agree this legislation coming out of Washington for allowing Mexican trucking into the full US of A is NOT in our interests. Jim Hornaday From: Tom Martz t.ma...@gmail.com To: ty...@googlegroups.com; MLC Google Group missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 5:05:40 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again an this differs from Canadian companies how..? And how does this impact the nations highway system or how does it differ from our neighbors to the north? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Fred B. Ellison fbelli...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=252861 Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks againObama quietly moves ahead without congressional approval Posted: January 18, 2011 8:39 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi © 2011 WorldNetDaily (TTNews.com) The Obama administration is preparing once again to allow Mexican trucks to roam freely on U.S. roads under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with or without the approval of Congress. Quietly, the U.S. Department of Transportation has posted on its website a Concept Document, specifying a Phased U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Long Haul Trucking Proposal that envisions allowing open access to an unspecified number of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads after DOT has time to post in the Federal Register new rules circulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA. The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll throughout the U.S. is a slap in the face to many Democrats in Congress, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who fought hard in 2008 to have language inserted into legislation that would stop the project out of concerns that Mexican trucks do not conform to U.S. safety standards. Obama ended Bush-era project In March 2009, President Obama signed the $410 billion Omnibus Funding Bill into law, along with provisions ending the Department of Transportation's Mexican truck demonstration project. DeFazio's office confirmed to WND that he has requested that Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., the chairman of the House Subcommittee and Transportation, hold hearings on the proposed Obama administration Mexican truck plans. The DOT's two-page Concept Document specifies at the end that the agency will periodically report to Congress on Mexican trucks in the U.S. But nothing in the document suggests DOT or the FMCSA has any intention of coming to Congress to seek permission before promulgating rules, initiating procedures to safety-test Mexican trucks and open the borders to FMCSA safety-certified Mexican long-haul carriers. The Concept Document published on the DOT website specifies vaguely, Subject to negotiation with Mexico, the number of carrier and truck participants in this first phase of the program will be managed to ensure adequate oversight. The DOT's initial program overview specifies that Mexican trucks allowed into the U.S. will have to complete successfully a Pre-Authority Safety Audit, or PASA, that will include an examination of Mexican commercial drivers' licenses, checking Mexican trucks against FMCSA safety requirements and certifying that Mexican drivers are proficient in English. The Concept Document, however, neglects to give details regarding how precisely Mexican trucks and drivers will be inspected and certified by Mexican or FMCSA field supervisors. Mexico demands trucks in U.S. TheTrucker.com, a trucking industry magazine,
Re: [MoLiCo] Fw: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again
Well Jim let me respond to some of your statementsOn multiple occasions while waiting for my load to cross the border in Laredo I was dispatched to the customs area to cross load from a mexican carrier to my trailer because they were placed out of service in the customs area because of HoS violations. This is NOT a rare occurrence as the inspection facility inspects about 20% of the fleet that comes through to drop trailers at border drop lots. An I'm in complete agreement with your statement on the RR. tom On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Linda Herd linda.h...@sbcglobal.netwrote: It is getting to the point of not saying can you believe this?. There is so much information on this type of problem that I now believe it. Linda - Forwarded Message *From:* James Hornaday Jr. rail...@sbcglobal.net *To:* ty...@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thu, January 20, 2011 8:57:26 PM *Subject:* Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Tom: Well, for one thing, the trucks and drivers registered in Canada are under comparable restrictions and laws as the US. All of the drivers from Canada (with the possible exception of Quebec) speak English. Most of the French Quebec drivers can speak English as well. They just speak French when they are in Quebec. I seriously doubt the regulations in Mexico are strict enough, and if they were, the corruption in enforcement down there would allow stinky trucks and inadequately trained drivers to go across the border and go anywhere. The amount of nasty stuff coming into the US from Canada is miniscule compared to what's coming across the southern border. I see trucks with Canadian licenses driving on the interstates. About 1 in 100. They don't bother me at all. If you want to stop stuff coming in from Mexico, you'd have to shut down the Kansas City Southern RR at the border. Nobody's complaining (that I'm aware of) about that mode of traffic. I agree this legislation coming out of Washington for allowing Mexican trucking into the full US of A is NOT in our interests. Jim Hornaday -- *From:* Tom Martz t.ma...@gmail.com *To:* ty...@googlegroups.com; MLC Google Group missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thu, January 20, 2011 5:05:40 PM *Subject:* Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again an this differs from Canadian companies how..? And how does this impact the nations highway system or how does it differ from our neighbors to the north? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Fred B. Ellison fbelli...@yahoo.comwrote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=252861 Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Obama quietly moves ahead without congressional approval -- Posted: January 18, 2011 8:39 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi © 2011 WorldNetDaily (TTNews.com http://ttnews.com/) The Obama administration is preparing once again to allow Mexican trucks to roam freely on U.S. roads under the auspices of the *North American*Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with or without the approval of Congress. Quietly, the U.S. Department of *Transportation* has posted on its websitehttp://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/cross-border/Concept-Trucks-English.pdfa Concept Document, specifying a Phased U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Long Haul Trucking *Proposal* that envisions allowing open access to an unspecified number of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads after DOT has time to post in the Federal Register new rules circulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA. The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll throughout the U.S. is a slap in the face to many Democrats in Congress, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who fought hard in 2008 to have language inserted into legislation that would stop the project out of concerns that Mexican trucks do not conform to U.S. safety standards. *Obama ended Bush-era project* In March 2009, President Obama signed the $410 billion Omnibus Funding Bill into law, along with provisions ending the Department of Transportation's Mexican truck *demonstration* project. DeFazio's office confirmed to WND that he has requested that Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., the chairman of the House Subcommittee and Transportation, hold hearings on the proposed Obama administration Mexican truck plans. The DOT's two-page Concept Document specifies at the end that the agency will periodically report to Congress on Mexican trucks in the U.S. But nothing in the document suggests DOT or the FMCSA has any intention of coming to Congress to seek permission before promulgating rules, initiating procedures to safety-test Mexican trucks and open the borders to FMCSA safety-certified Mexican long-haul carriers. The Concept Document published on the DOT website specifies vaguely, Subject to negotiation with Mexico, the number of carrier and truck
RE: [MoLiCo] Fw: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again
Just go to Kansas City and check out the Smart Port that is if you could get in, and you will not be able to, this thing has been in the making for some time and most people want to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing about the invasion. Jerry From: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com [mailto:missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Martz Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:55 AM To: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [MoLiCo] Fw: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Well Jim let me respond to some of your statementsOn multiple occasions while waiting for my load to cross the border in Laredo I was dispatched to the customs area to cross load from a mexican carrier to my trailer because they were placed out of service in the customs area because of HoS violations. This is NOT a rare occurrence as the inspection facility inspects about 20% of the fleet that comes through to drop trailers at border drop lots. An I'm in complete agreement with your statement on the RR. tom On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Linda Herd linda.h...@sbcglobal.net wrote: It is getting to the point of not saying can you believe this?. There is so much information on this type of problem that I now believe it. Linda - Forwarded Message From: James Hornaday Jr. rail...@sbcglobal.net To: ty...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 8:57:26 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Tom: Well, for one thing, the trucks and drivers registered in Canada are under comparable restrictions and laws as the US. All of the drivers from Canada (with the possible exception of Quebec) speak English. Most of the French Quebec drivers can speak English as well. They just speak French when they are in Quebec. I seriously doubt the regulations in Mexico are strict enough, and if they were, the corruption in enforcement down there would allow stinky trucks and inadequately trained drivers to go across the border and go anywhere. The amount of nasty stuff coming into the US from Canada is miniscule compared to what's coming across the southern border. I see trucks with Canadian licenses driving on the interstates. About 1 in 100. They don't bother me at all. If you want to stop stuff coming in from Mexico, you'd have to shut down the Kansas City Southern RR at the border. Nobody's complaining (that I'm aware of) about that mode of traffic. I agree this legislation coming out of Washington for allowing Mexican trucking into the full US of A is NOT in our interests. Jim Hornaday _ From: Tom Martz t.ma...@gmail.com To: ty...@googlegroups.com; MLC Google Group missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 5:05:40 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again an this differs from Canadian companies how..? And how does this impact the nations highway system or how does it differ from our neighbors to the north? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Fred B. Ellison fbelli...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=252861 pageId=252861 Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Obama quietly moves ahead without congressional approval _ Posted: January 18, 2011 8:39 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi C 2011 WorldNetDaily Error! Filename not specified. (TTNews.com http://ttnews.com/ ) The Obama administration is preparing once again to allow Mexican trucks to roam freely on U.S. roads under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with or without the approval of Congress. Quietly, the U.S. Department of Transportation has posted on its website http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/cross-border/Concept-Trucks-English.pdf a Concept Document, specifying a Phased U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Long Haul Trucking Proposal that envisions allowing open access to an unspecified number of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads after DOT has time to post in the Federal Register new rules circulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA. The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll throughout the U.S. is a slap in the face to many Democrats in Congress, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who fought hard in 2008 to have language inserted into legislation that would stop the project out of concerns that Mexican trucks do not conform to U.S. safety standards. Obama ended Bush-era project In March 2009, President Obama signed the $410 billion Omnibus Funding Bill into law, along with provisions ending the Department of Transportation's Mexican truck demonstration project. DeFazio's office confirmed to WND that he has requested that Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., the chairman of the House Subcommittee and Transportation, hold hearings on the proposed Obama administration Mexican truck plans. The DOT's
[MoLiCo] The Tenth Amendment Center - Nullification is the Rightful Remedy
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/01/13/null-void-of-no-effect/ Null. Void. Of No Effect. by Michael Boldin When Washington D.C. violates the constitution – as it does every single day – the essential question is – “what do we do about it?” For countless decades, Americans have been responding through protests, lawsuits, and “voting the bums out.” Yet, year in and year out, federal power always grows. And it doesn’t matter which political part is in power, or what person occupies the white house either. THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added] Notice that TJ didn’t advise us to use nullification as a remedy “once in a while.” And he certainly didn’t tell us that a nullification is the rightful remedy after “we vote some bums out” or “we sue the federal government in federal court” or after anything else for that matter. Jefferson was pretty straightforward and recommended that every single time the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it in the constitution (there’s about 30 powers and nothing more), that we’re to reject and nullify those acts on a state level as they happen. HAPPENING NOW Already, more than two dozen states have virtually stopped the 2005 Real ID act dead in its tracks. How? By refusing to implement it. Fifteen states – most recently Arizona – are using the principles of the 10th Amendment to actively defy federal laws (and a supreme court ruling, too!) on marijuana. Eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts in an attempt to reject some federal gun laws and regulations. And seven states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts to block health care mandates from being enforced. NULL. VOID. OF NO EFFECT. Get used to reading these words, because the political climate is starting to swing a new direction. There is a growing number of people in America that are recognizing a simple truth – asking, demanding, or suing to get the federal government to fix problems caused by the federal government just doesn’t work. Take, for example, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, first introduced in Texas as HB297, and now also introduced in Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (SB498) and Maine (LD58). Here’s an excerpt: “the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.” But these bills, as introduced in Texas, Maine, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming are far more than mere declarations or position statements ENFORCEMENT Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition: That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said: “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist” Here Madison and Webster assert what is required of nullification laws to be successful — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state. All five bills explicitly include this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties on federal agents for attempting to enforce National Health Care mandates in their state. For example, from Wyoming’s HB35: Any official, agent or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that
