In regards to my article "Let's Try This Again", I got the following e mail from Lynn Stuter. I found it to quite informative, so I am sharing it with the few people who do happen to stop by this blog from time to time.
Neal,
Do you know how the feds circumvent the 10th Amendment? They do so through discretionary grants, the Request for Proposals for such grants laying down all the federal laws the states must be in compliance with in order for the states to get discretionary grant money. A friend of mine, some years ago, contacted the federal government and requested a listing of all the discretionary grants received by our state in one year. About a week later she received a box. When she opened the box, she saw a stack of continuous feed paper, several inches thick, continuous listings on each page, of all the federal discretionary grants received by our state in one year. She was astonished. This happened about the time that she and I were trying to figure out how Goals 2000, School to Work and HR 6 were mandatory when each law claimed “voluntary” compliance. What we discovered is that in order to get the grant money, the state had to be in compliance with all the laws listed in the request for proposals and when signing the grant application, they were certifying state compliance with all those laws. Taking a stack of paper, continuous feed, multiple listings on each page, and running down all the laws the state had to be in compliance with in order to get the money, you quickly establish a spider-web effect in which the state is ensnared.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Let's Try This Again
I wrote this a few days ago and it was posted online via a message board run by Jackie Juntti. I received a lot of positive feedback concerning it, unfortunately many were from people who only cared about the issue of legalizing marijuana, which I neither condemn nor condone in my article. I would hope that this is read with a view to the larger picture....Neal
One of my recent articles drew some criticism from a few people. It wasn't the content per se that they criticized, it was the tone in which I wrote it. I was told in one instance that I was condescending and arrogant, and in another that I sounded angry and I would be much more successful converting people to my point of view if I toned it down some.
I won't deny that I was upset when I wrote that last article, but my anger was only directed at a very small number of people with whom I work, not the audience who reads my material on the internet. If I came across that way, I sincerely apologize, for it was not my intent.
With that out of the way, I would like to try to explain what I was trying to get across before, but this time in a more civil tone.
The other night on the news there was a story about a medical marijuana lab in Sacramento that was raided by the Drug Enforcement Agency. DEA agents were on the scene prior to the lab opening for business, and as soon as the doors opened they proceeded to confiscate all their supplies and records. No one was arrested, but the facility was basically shut down.
Irregardless of whether I condone or condemn the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, or recreational for that matter, I am only using this story as an example to get my point across.
There have been some studies that prove that marijuana is indeed helpful in relieving the symptoms of some medical conditions such as glaucoma. Opponents of the medicinal use of marijuana claim that there are side effects that are serious enough to prevent it's use. If that is the case, I would like for them to think about what chemotherapy or radiation therapy does to the body, it kills cells and does serious damage to the immune system as well. Those sound like pretty serious side effects to me as well. Also, if you were to spend any amount of time watching television you have undoubtedly seen the numerous ads for prescription drugs to help you with everything from high blood pressure, restless leg syndrome, cholesterol, to erectile dysfunction. Every single one of these ads has a disclaimer at the end listing all the side effects of these drugs. Yet for some reason these drugs are acceptable, and marijuana is not.
I have strayed from my point though. The DEA raided this lab on the grounds that, although California has legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, it still violates federal law. In theory they are right, it is a violation of an existing federal law to possess and/or sell marijuana. My question is this, where does it say our federal government has the authority to create such a law? I cannot find that authority in the Constitution, anywhere.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” So if I can't find it, and it isn't in the Constitution, how can Congress make it a law to restrict the usage of marijuana. That should decisions should be left up to the states, as clearly stated in the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Once in our countries history, our government tried to mandate morality when the 18th amendment was ratified. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the 18th amendment, it instituted prohibition, which made it illegal to manufacture, sell, and transport alcoholic beverages. After it was ratified, Congress enacted the Volstead Act to begin enforcing this new Constitutional amendment. Prohibition gave a shot in the arm to organized crime and became very unpopular among the people, so in December of 1933 the 21st Amendment was ratified, which repealed the 18th amendment.
Although or government tried to impose morality upon the people of this country, the did so in a legal manner, through a constitutional amendment. The same can not be said with marijuana. Congress just decided upon itself to ban the usage of marijuana, and to hell with states rights.
Our government has declared an unconstitutional war on drugs which have done little to curb the usage but has created a monstrous agency that terrorizes American citizens, particularly those who legally use marijuana for valid medical purposes.
The Drug Enforcement Agency has 10,891 employees with an annual budget of $2.4 billion dollars. (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm) Every penny that is spent on this war on drugs by the DEA is an unconstitutional expenditure of your tax dollars. It should be up to the states to enact legislation either prohibiting, or legalizing the usage of marijuana.
Again, I am neither condoning, nor condemning the usage of marijuana, or any other drugs for that matter. I am only attempting to show you it is not within the federal governments scope of power to enact that type law. To help explain this better I would like to present a series of quotes by founding fathers and ex=presidents, which explain the powers of government which are granted them by the Constitution. I hope that after reading them you will come to agree that the government does not have the power to legislate drug usage.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence. So, if governments are instituted among men, who institutes them?
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Okay, the people of the United States created our government.
Former President William Henry Harrison, later in our nations history, also said, “The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.” So, the Constitution formed our government, and that government only operates on power that was granted to them by those who are governed, which happens to be you and I.
So is said about the Constitution itself? Abraham Lincoln said this, “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Patrick Henry said this, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Finally, George Washington said this, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
Washington said that the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States clarified that point by saying this regarding those who govern, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects."
Now you see that it was we the people that created our government, and that they have only the powers that we give to them. Those powers are described in the Constitution, and that document is the tool that limits their powers, and is obligatory upon all, until altered by an act of the people.
What do we do when our government does something we don’t like? The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
So, we have the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. What if they don’t listen?
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln
I would urge everyone reading this, who hasn’t done so already, find a copy of the Constitution and read articles 1 & 2. Learn what powers the Constitution authorizes the Congress and the President. Then decide for yourself if it is within their authority to pass federal laws which they have no legal authority to enact. Remember that the Constitution is just as valid today as it was the day it was signed in Philadelphia. Henry Clay said, "The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity."
It is your Constitution, yours and mine. I recommend that those who are not familiar with it, become so quickly before our government is successful in dismantling it for good.
One of my recent articles drew some criticism from a few people. It wasn't the content per se that they criticized, it was the tone in which I wrote it. I was told in one instance that I was condescending and arrogant, and in another that I sounded angry and I would be much more successful converting people to my point of view if I toned it down some.
I won't deny that I was upset when I wrote that last article, but my anger was only directed at a very small number of people with whom I work, not the audience who reads my material on the internet. If I came across that way, I sincerely apologize, for it was not my intent.
With that out of the way, I would like to try to explain what I was trying to get across before, but this time in a more civil tone.
The other night on the news there was a story about a medical marijuana lab in Sacramento that was raided by the Drug Enforcement Agency. DEA agents were on the scene prior to the lab opening for business, and as soon as the doors opened they proceeded to confiscate all their supplies and records. No one was arrested, but the facility was basically shut down.
Irregardless of whether I condone or condemn the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, or recreational for that matter, I am only using this story as an example to get my point across.
There have been some studies that prove that marijuana is indeed helpful in relieving the symptoms of some medical conditions such as glaucoma. Opponents of the medicinal use of marijuana claim that there are side effects that are serious enough to prevent it's use. If that is the case, I would like for them to think about what chemotherapy or radiation therapy does to the body, it kills cells and does serious damage to the immune system as well. Those sound like pretty serious side effects to me as well. Also, if you were to spend any amount of time watching television you have undoubtedly seen the numerous ads for prescription drugs to help you with everything from high blood pressure, restless leg syndrome, cholesterol, to erectile dysfunction. Every single one of these ads has a disclaimer at the end listing all the side effects of these drugs. Yet for some reason these drugs are acceptable, and marijuana is not.
I have strayed from my point though. The DEA raided this lab on the grounds that, although California has legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, it still violates federal law. In theory they are right, it is a violation of an existing federal law to possess and/or sell marijuana. My question is this, where does it say our federal government has the authority to create such a law? I cannot find that authority in the Constitution, anywhere.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” So if I can't find it, and it isn't in the Constitution, how can Congress make it a law to restrict the usage of marijuana. That should decisions should be left up to the states, as clearly stated in the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Once in our countries history, our government tried to mandate morality when the 18th amendment was ratified. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the 18th amendment, it instituted prohibition, which made it illegal to manufacture, sell, and transport alcoholic beverages. After it was ratified, Congress enacted the Volstead Act to begin enforcing this new Constitutional amendment. Prohibition gave a shot in the arm to organized crime and became very unpopular among the people, so in December of 1933 the 21st Amendment was ratified, which repealed the 18th amendment.
Although or government tried to impose morality upon the people of this country, the did so in a legal manner, through a constitutional amendment. The same can not be said with marijuana. Congress just decided upon itself to ban the usage of marijuana, and to hell with states rights.
Our government has declared an unconstitutional war on drugs which have done little to curb the usage but has created a monstrous agency that terrorizes American citizens, particularly those who legally use marijuana for valid medical purposes.
The Drug Enforcement Agency has 10,891 employees with an annual budget of $2.4 billion dollars. (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm) Every penny that is spent on this war on drugs by the DEA is an unconstitutional expenditure of your tax dollars. It should be up to the states to enact legislation either prohibiting, or legalizing the usage of marijuana.
Again, I am neither condoning, nor condemning the usage of marijuana, or any other drugs for that matter. I am only attempting to show you it is not within the federal governments scope of power to enact that type law. To help explain this better I would like to present a series of quotes by founding fathers and ex=presidents, which explain the powers of government which are granted them by the Constitution. I hope that after reading them you will come to agree that the government does not have the power to legislate drug usage.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence. So, if governments are instituted among men, who institutes them?
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Okay, the people of the United States created our government.
Former President William Henry Harrison, later in our nations history, also said, “The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.” So, the Constitution formed our government, and that government only operates on power that was granted to them by those who are governed, which happens to be you and I.
So is said about the Constitution itself? Abraham Lincoln said this, “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Patrick Henry said this, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Finally, George Washington said this, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
Washington said that the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States clarified that point by saying this regarding those who govern, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects."
Now you see that it was we the people that created our government, and that they have only the powers that we give to them. Those powers are described in the Constitution, and that document is the tool that limits their powers, and is obligatory upon all, until altered by an act of the people.
What do we do when our government does something we don’t like? The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
So, we have the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. What if they don’t listen?
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln
I would urge everyone reading this, who hasn’t done so already, find a copy of the Constitution and read articles 1 & 2. Learn what powers the Constitution authorizes the Congress and the President. Then decide for yourself if it is within their authority to pass federal laws which they have no legal authority to enact. Remember that the Constitution is just as valid today as it was the day it was signed in Philadelphia. Henry Clay said, "The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity."
It is your Constitution, yours and mine. I recommend that those who are not familiar with it, become so quickly before our government is successful in dismantling it for good.
A letter to Mattel Toys
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been paying close attention to the news lately regarding the massive number of recalled toys produced in China for numerous companies, Mattel included. I grew up enjoying the quality made toys my parents bought for me made by Mattel. I remember with a fond heart the Thingmaker set and the Space Walker toys that I played with for hours on end.
Unfortunately those days are gone. The toys we get today are mass produced in China with little regards to public safety. What is worse is that the toy makers themselves have been forced to open factories in China to keep costs at a minimum to satisfy big box retail stores such as Wal-Mart.
These practices have put our children at risk from toys that do not meet the safety standards we grew up to expect from American made toys. They have also hurt the American workers who lost their jobs because they could not compete with Chinese workers who worked in sweatshop type conditions for a pittance of what American workers were paid.
With these thoughts in mind I will never again by a toy produced by Mattel, or Fischer Price or any other company for that matter, that does not have a notice saying that it was made in the USA. If that hurts your corporate profits, so be it. My concern is for the welfare of our children and the American workers who have been sold out for profit.
I have been paying close attention to the news lately regarding the massive number of recalled toys produced in China for numerous companies, Mattel included. I grew up enjoying the quality made toys my parents bought for me made by Mattel. I remember with a fond heart the Thingmaker set and the Space Walker toys that I played with for hours on end.
Unfortunately those days are gone. The toys we get today are mass produced in China with little regards to public safety. What is worse is that the toy makers themselves have been forced to open factories in China to keep costs at a minimum to satisfy big box retail stores such as Wal-Mart.
These practices have put our children at risk from toys that do not meet the safety standards we grew up to expect from American made toys. They have also hurt the American workers who lost their jobs because they could not compete with Chinese workers who worked in sweatshop type conditions for a pittance of what American workers were paid.
With these thoughts in mind I will never again by a toy produced by Mattel, or Fischer Price or any other company for that matter, that does not have a notice saying that it was made in the USA. If that hurts your corporate profits, so be it. My concern is for the welfare of our children and the American workers who have been sold out for profit.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I am downright disgusted
The other day some guy asked me at work why I always sit by myself. He then answered his own question by saying that he knows what I am doing, I am sitting there watching people, spying on them. Well, he is half-right, I am always watching people, but I am not spying. I am sitting there feeling absolutely disgusted with their trivial conversations.
I hear then talk about who won the football game, the NASCAR race, the NBA game, or whatever sporting event took place the day before. I hear them talk about some silly television show that was on last night.
What I find amazing is that people can spend so much time watching television, when in fact they hate what is being shown. According to an article in the September 17 issue of the Washington Times, "Americans may watch an average of 12 to 17 hours of television a week, but they continue to hate what they see."
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070914/NATION/109140075/1002
What I do not hear is talk about how absolutely screwed up this country is, and that is what disgusts me. That is why I sit alone, because I cannot stomach trivial nonsense when there are much more important things people should be talking about.
I am not saying I hate these people, it is not in my nature to hate people, but that does not stop me from feeling utterly frustrated and disgusted with their apathy and ignorance concerning the state of affairs in this country.
When I do get the opportunity to talk with someone concerning one issue or another I am usually called a kook for my views. Sometimes however people tell me that I am much smarter than they are for being able to understand the Constitution and all these laws.
Believe me; I am no smarter than anyone else is. I have, however, taken the time to read and, most importantly, THINK about what I am reading. After all the Constitution and our laws are only words. Anyone who speaks English should be able to understand them if they were willing to put forth the effort.
When I first started writing articles, I just strung words together and hoped for the best. I can now go back, read some of my earlier writings, and see how much I have improved. I still do not consider myself a great writer, but practice will make me better. It all boils down to using your God given brains for something other than sending signals to your hand to switch the remote control or open another beer.
So let us try a simple experiment for some of you who may be a bit rusty when it comes to thinking.
As I stated earlier, laws are just words. Anyone can string words together, but does that make them law? No, it does not. So where do our laws come from? They come from our government, whether it is local, state, or federal. The question begs to be asked, what makes these laws binding upon us?
Let me try to answer that for you. To do so I need you to read from the Declaration of Independence, wherein it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Our founders believed that we had certain rights that were not given to us by man, they were unalienable. Unalienable means, incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. That means that these rights cannot be taken away from us.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights and they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
Now is the time for you to stop and think. What does that mean to you? Here, let me help. It means that we have rights that cannot be taken from us, we institute governments to protect those rights, and that the government has only the powers that we give to them, NOT VICE VERSA!
What does the Declaration of Independence say about government when it endangers those rights? It says, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I would hope that you all would know that the Declaration of Independence was written prior to our current form of government being instituted. So my next question is this, what gives our current government the power to enact laws that are binding upon the people? The answer of course is the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution established the government. As the Declaration of Independence stated, governments are instituted among men, so who instituted the Constitution. We did, the Preamble to the Constitution says, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you follow this logically, you now know that we have rights that cannot be taken from us, unalienable rights. We have governments instituted among us to secure those rights. We have a Constitution that institutes a government, whose job it is to secure those rights.
Article 6 of the Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
This Constitution is the law of all laws, the supreme law of the land. All other laws must conform to Constitutional dictates, or we should not be expected to abide by said law because it is unconstitutional.
Our Constitution establishes a Congress to enact laws and a president to execute the laws. As I have already proven, the Constitution is the supreme law, and therefore all laws that Congress enacts must abide by the powers granted Congress within the Constitution. What about the President?
Every president who enters office takes an oath, which can be found in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Faithfully execute, that means he will make sure our laws are enforced. Article 2, Section 3 also states, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. That term faithfully execute must have been important, since it is found twice. For a president to faithfully execute our nation’s laws, he must first consider whether the law he is to execute does not violate the Constitution, since it is first amongst our laws, the supreme law of the land.
Now that I have explained things, gotten you to THINK, I have a homework assignment for you. It is a two-part assignment. Part 1 is to read Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights. Ponder these passages as you read them, using the THINKING skills I have awakened in you. Part 2 of your homework is to look at the laws we have today and see if they conform to what the Constitution authorizes, or if they violate it.
If they violate it, I want you to read once again the following, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Now you know why I sit alone. I hear these asinine conversations when people could be thinking about what I have just explained. When I hear people talking about things like this I will end my solitude, but in the meantime you people disgust me.
I feel the same as Samuel Adams must have when he said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
I hear then talk about who won the football game, the NASCAR race, the NBA game, or whatever sporting event took place the day before. I hear them talk about some silly television show that was on last night.
What I find amazing is that people can spend so much time watching television, when in fact they hate what is being shown. According to an article in the September 17 issue of the Washington Times, "Americans may watch an average of 12 to 17 hours of television a week, but they continue to hate what they see."
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070914/NATION/109140075/1002
What I do not hear is talk about how absolutely screwed up this country is, and that is what disgusts me. That is why I sit alone, because I cannot stomach trivial nonsense when there are much more important things people should be talking about.
I am not saying I hate these people, it is not in my nature to hate people, but that does not stop me from feeling utterly frustrated and disgusted with their apathy and ignorance concerning the state of affairs in this country.
When I do get the opportunity to talk with someone concerning one issue or another I am usually called a kook for my views. Sometimes however people tell me that I am much smarter than they are for being able to understand the Constitution and all these laws.
Believe me; I am no smarter than anyone else is. I have, however, taken the time to read and, most importantly, THINK about what I am reading. After all the Constitution and our laws are only words. Anyone who speaks English should be able to understand them if they were willing to put forth the effort.
When I first started writing articles, I just strung words together and hoped for the best. I can now go back, read some of my earlier writings, and see how much I have improved. I still do not consider myself a great writer, but practice will make me better. It all boils down to using your God given brains for something other than sending signals to your hand to switch the remote control or open another beer.
So let us try a simple experiment for some of you who may be a bit rusty when it comes to thinking.
As I stated earlier, laws are just words. Anyone can string words together, but does that make them law? No, it does not. So where do our laws come from? They come from our government, whether it is local, state, or federal. The question begs to be asked, what makes these laws binding upon us?
Let me try to answer that for you. To do so I need you to read from the Declaration of Independence, wherein it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Our founders believed that we had certain rights that were not given to us by man, they were unalienable. Unalienable means, incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. That means that these rights cannot be taken away from us.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights and they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
Now is the time for you to stop and think. What does that mean to you? Here, let me help. It means that we have rights that cannot be taken from us, we institute governments to protect those rights, and that the government has only the powers that we give to them, NOT VICE VERSA!
What does the Declaration of Independence say about government when it endangers those rights? It says, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I would hope that you all would know that the Declaration of Independence was written prior to our current form of government being instituted. So my next question is this, what gives our current government the power to enact laws that are binding upon the people? The answer of course is the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution established the government. As the Declaration of Independence stated, governments are instituted among men, so who instituted the Constitution. We did, the Preamble to the Constitution says, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If you follow this logically, you now know that we have rights that cannot be taken from us, unalienable rights. We have governments instituted among us to secure those rights. We have a Constitution that institutes a government, whose job it is to secure those rights.
Article 6 of the Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
This Constitution is the law of all laws, the supreme law of the land. All other laws must conform to Constitutional dictates, or we should not be expected to abide by said law because it is unconstitutional.
Our Constitution establishes a Congress to enact laws and a president to execute the laws. As I have already proven, the Constitution is the supreme law, and therefore all laws that Congress enacts must abide by the powers granted Congress within the Constitution. What about the President?
Every president who enters office takes an oath, which can be found in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Faithfully execute, that means he will make sure our laws are enforced. Article 2, Section 3 also states, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. That term faithfully execute must have been important, since it is found twice. For a president to faithfully execute our nation’s laws, he must first consider whether the law he is to execute does not violate the Constitution, since it is first amongst our laws, the supreme law of the land.
Now that I have explained things, gotten you to THINK, I have a homework assignment for you. It is a two-part assignment. Part 1 is to read Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights. Ponder these passages as you read them, using the THINKING skills I have awakened in you. Part 2 of your homework is to look at the laws we have today and see if they conform to what the Constitution authorizes, or if they violate it.
If they violate it, I want you to read once again the following, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Now you know why I sit alone. I hear these asinine conversations when people could be thinking about what I have just explained. When I hear people talking about things like this I will end my solitude, but in the meantime you people disgust me.
I feel the same as Samuel Adams must have when he said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Are We Secure Yet?
Last week at the Grand Hyatt in Washington D.C., the Transportation Security Administration held public hearings to discuss the Secure Flight Program. The SFP is a plan in which all people will be screened against watchlists prior to boarding an aircraft that arrives at or departs from any air terminal in the U.S.
At the public meeting, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley made the following comments,
“A week ago our nation commemorated the sixth anniversary of 9/11. The events of that day are a stark reminder that we face an adaptive enemy that has a continued appetite for attacking the West. We are today in a heightened threat environment and this threat is real. As time passes from 9/11, it does not mean the threat is fading. It means there is more time available for preparation—for the terrorists and for us. We have the responsibility to use every moment that we have to our best advantage.”
Hawley went on to say that,
“I'd like to point out that Secure Flight is a very focused program. It does not use commercial data, and it does not assign a score based on risk. In addition, TSA does not maintain the watch list. We receive the watch list from the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI.”
TSA Webpage
Americans want to feel safe and secure when they are traveling. In the wake of 9/11, that is something we have been led to believe is the goal of our government, and particularly the Department of Homeland Security.
Just prior to the anniversary of 9/11, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated that one of his biggest obligations in the remainder of his term is to eliminate attitudes which oppose the costs and inconveniences of DHS security measures. He continued by saying that he will launch a campaign message of shared sacrifice "in as plain English as I can, as often as I can and in as many places as I can".
We now have added waits in lines at airports, we are required to take off our shoes for examination, and we cannot bring bottled water or any sharp objects onto planes. Add to all that we are now going to be pre-screened against some watchlist to make sure we do not pose a threat. (I wonder if I am on any of those lists?)
Think about this very carefully for a moment, what do all these plans and programs have in common? They all apply to air travel, that is what they have in common. September 11 was committed by someone, I don’t buy into the official story, who took aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon, yet don’t you think our government has just a little case of tunnel vision in regards to our nations security? Everything they do to protect us, (sorry, ignore the giggles on that one), seems to be aimed at making air travel more safe and secure. I won’t go into the dismal records airlines have had recently in regards to delays and lost luggage. Think about it though, are airplanes the only thing we should be worried about?
What about our open borders and our governments refusal to take quick and firm action in the aftermath of 9/11 to slam the door shut on any further entry into our country from possible terrorists? Illegal immigration is an extremely controversial issue, and one in which most of you know my sentiments on it. I would like to go at it now from a slightly different perspective than I normally do.
This is just a scenario, but imagine you have 1000 illegal aliens entering our country every day. If 2% of those are terrorists we end up with 20 terrorists a day entering our country, 7300 annually. How many does our government claim it took to commit the attacks of 9/11? Imagine the havoc 7300 terrorists could create.
You say that won’t happen, our guys will catch them, they can tell the difference between a terrorist and a poor immigrant who is only looking for work. If you believe that you are dumber than I thought!
Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw recently stated that there had, in fact, been people arrested for crossing our border illegally who were linked to terrorism. Although Leticia Zamarripa, a spokesperson for ICE in El Paso stated that she was unaware of it, McCraws comments reflect those made previously by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, who said that a small number of people with known links to terrorist organizations have been caught crossing the border. McCraw further stated that since March of 2006, 347 people from “terrorism-related countries” have been arrested crossing our borders illegally. Also, the number of Iraqis captured at the border has tripled since last year.
Are you aware that in Travis County Texas, approximately 20 Arab persons a week utilize the County Court to change their names and drivers licenses from Arabic to Hispanic names? If they are doing it legally here in the United States, doesn’t it seem like terrorists would be using the same tactics before attempting to enter our country illegally?
If that is the case, then what about when someone like the three Mexican nationals who recently attempted to use fraudulent identification to enter the Los Alamos National Laboratory?
News Story
If this data is accurate there could easily be hundreds of terrorist cells spread out throughout our nation, just awaiting the chance to strike, either individually or in a concerted attack to wreak massive damage to our nation. The whole time these terrorists could be working amongst the underground population of illegal laborers, sending money out of the country to support their terrorist groups back home.
According to the New York Times, in an article on Sept. 14, 1966 they say that some experts estimate that $4-$6 billion dollars a year is wired out of our country back to Mexico. Even a small portion of that would go a long way to funding any terrorist activity in the United States.
Yet the whole time President Bush turns a blind eye to our lack of border security, making only token gestures to the people that he is serious about dealing with this problem. In the meantime we are dealing with a flood of persons, in which many of whom could be possible terrorists, entering our country daily. I guess the best thing to do is stay airborne. With all the rules and safety guidelines regarding air travel, the only safe place any more will be in an airplane 30,000 feet off the ground. Thanks Mr. President, job well done!
At the public meeting, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley made the following comments,
“A week ago our nation commemorated the sixth anniversary of 9/11. The events of that day are a stark reminder that we face an adaptive enemy that has a continued appetite for attacking the West. We are today in a heightened threat environment and this threat is real. As time passes from 9/11, it does not mean the threat is fading. It means there is more time available for preparation—for the terrorists and for us. We have the responsibility to use every moment that we have to our best advantage.”
Hawley went on to say that,
“I'd like to point out that Secure Flight is a very focused program. It does not use commercial data, and it does not assign a score based on risk. In addition, TSA does not maintain the watch list. We receive the watch list from the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI.”
TSA Webpage
Americans want to feel safe and secure when they are traveling. In the wake of 9/11, that is something we have been led to believe is the goal of our government, and particularly the Department of Homeland Security.
Just prior to the anniversary of 9/11, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated that one of his biggest obligations in the remainder of his term is to eliminate attitudes which oppose the costs and inconveniences of DHS security measures. He continued by saying that he will launch a campaign message of shared sacrifice "in as plain English as I can, as often as I can and in as many places as I can".
We now have added waits in lines at airports, we are required to take off our shoes for examination, and we cannot bring bottled water or any sharp objects onto planes. Add to all that we are now going to be pre-screened against some watchlist to make sure we do not pose a threat. (I wonder if I am on any of those lists?)
Think about this very carefully for a moment, what do all these plans and programs have in common? They all apply to air travel, that is what they have in common. September 11 was committed by someone, I don’t buy into the official story, who took aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon, yet don’t you think our government has just a little case of tunnel vision in regards to our nations security? Everything they do to protect us, (sorry, ignore the giggles on that one), seems to be aimed at making air travel more safe and secure. I won’t go into the dismal records airlines have had recently in regards to delays and lost luggage. Think about it though, are airplanes the only thing we should be worried about?
What about our open borders and our governments refusal to take quick and firm action in the aftermath of 9/11 to slam the door shut on any further entry into our country from possible terrorists? Illegal immigration is an extremely controversial issue, and one in which most of you know my sentiments on it. I would like to go at it now from a slightly different perspective than I normally do.
This is just a scenario, but imagine you have 1000 illegal aliens entering our country every day. If 2% of those are terrorists we end up with 20 terrorists a day entering our country, 7300 annually. How many does our government claim it took to commit the attacks of 9/11? Imagine the havoc 7300 terrorists could create.
You say that won’t happen, our guys will catch them, they can tell the difference between a terrorist and a poor immigrant who is only looking for work. If you believe that you are dumber than I thought!
Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw recently stated that there had, in fact, been people arrested for crossing our border illegally who were linked to terrorism. Although Leticia Zamarripa, a spokesperson for ICE in El Paso stated that she was unaware of it, McCraws comments reflect those made previously by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, who said that a small number of people with known links to terrorist organizations have been caught crossing the border. McCraw further stated that since March of 2006, 347 people from “terrorism-related countries” have been arrested crossing our borders illegally. Also, the number of Iraqis captured at the border has tripled since last year.
Are you aware that in Travis County Texas, approximately 20 Arab persons a week utilize the County Court to change their names and drivers licenses from Arabic to Hispanic names? If they are doing it legally here in the United States, doesn’t it seem like terrorists would be using the same tactics before attempting to enter our country illegally?
If that is the case, then what about when someone like the three Mexican nationals who recently attempted to use fraudulent identification to enter the Los Alamos National Laboratory?
News Story
If this data is accurate there could easily be hundreds of terrorist cells spread out throughout our nation, just awaiting the chance to strike, either individually or in a concerted attack to wreak massive damage to our nation. The whole time these terrorists could be working amongst the underground population of illegal laborers, sending money out of the country to support their terrorist groups back home.
According to the New York Times, in an article on Sept. 14, 1966 they say that some experts estimate that $4-$6 billion dollars a year is wired out of our country back to Mexico. Even a small portion of that would go a long way to funding any terrorist activity in the United States.
Yet the whole time President Bush turns a blind eye to our lack of border security, making only token gestures to the people that he is serious about dealing with this problem. In the meantime we are dealing with a flood of persons, in which many of whom could be possible terrorists, entering our country daily. I guess the best thing to do is stay airborne. With all the rules and safety guidelines regarding air travel, the only safe place any more will be in an airplane 30,000 feet off the ground. Thanks Mr. President, job well done!
Our Dysfunctional Republic Part 2
Part II
Pre-Revolution Colonial History
To understand what has gone wrong with our country, and our government we must first understand how our republic was supposed to be governed. It is essential that we understand the reasons that our existing form of government came about. That means looking back to the history of this country.
While parts of America had been colonized previously it wasn't until the arrival of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock that a mass emigration of Europeans began in earnest. Many of these immigrants left their homelands to escape political or religious oppression. Some came to seek opportunities that were denied them at home. Whatever their reasons, they all faced serious challenges and hardships to create a new life here in this land called America.
As their numbers grew, and they faced and overcame many difficulties, the settlers spread out and formed the first thirteen colonies of the United States. While these settlers came here seeking freedom from oppression, they were not entirely free. The English crown still considered them citizens of Britain. The settlers still had to deal with the fact that England was their lawful sovereign.
Being that England ruled over them, they imposed many laws upon the colonies, while denying them representation in Parliament. Among these acts where the Navigation Acts of 1696. These Acts limited all colonial trade to English built vessels. In 1750 Parliament passed the Iron Act, which restricted the growth of the iron industry in the colonies. In 1764 the Parliament passed the Currency Act which prohibited the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed by the Parliament which imposed the first direct tax upon the American colonies, payable directly to England. Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials were to be taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, almanacs, and even playing cards. Also in 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required colonists to house British troops and supply them with food. In 1766 Parliament repealed the Stamp Act and passed the Declaratory Act, stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the colonies. In 1774 Parliament enacted a series of Coercive Acts which virtually ended all form of self-rule by the colonies.
It is interesting to note that if you look a modern history book, the term 'taxation without representation' is mentioned often as the reasoning behind the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence.
Yet, if you read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin you find something entirely different. In 1757 Franklin went to London, where he would stay for many years. It was during this time that the colonies began issuing Colonial Scrip. Colonial scrip was debt free fiat paper money created by our government for the payment of debts public and private.
During his time in London, Franklin was asked by the bank of England how Franklin could account for colonies newfound wealth, Franklin exclaimed, “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called colonial scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
It was at this time that the Parliament passed the currency act of 1764, prohibiting colonial officials from issuing their own money, ordering them to pay future taxes in gold or silver coins.
In his autobiography Franklin states that, “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed.”
He also makes the assertion that, “The Colonies would gladly have borne a little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England had taken away from the Colonies their own money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war.”
Whatever the reasons, the colonies had had enough of British rule. In 1775, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a provincial congress was held in which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began preparations for war. It was at this time that Patrick Henry delivered a very moving speech in which he said,
"Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
On April 19, 1775 about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stood face to face with a British advance guard. A single shot, 'heard around the world' was fired which was the beginning of the American Revolution. One last attempt at peace was attempted in July when the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, to try and achieve a reconciliation with Britain. King George refused to even look at it. All hopes for peace were gone, the colonies now had to fight for their liberty or remain servants to the British Crown.
On July 6, 1775 the Continental Congress issued a Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, in which they detail their reasons for fighting the British. They resolve to '...die free men rather than live as slaves."
One year later, on July the Continental Congress formally adapts the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. In my humble opinion, the opening of the Declaration of Independence is the most eloquent piece of literature ever written by man. In it, Jefferson states,
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
The colonies had just declared themselves independent of England, shots had been fired. There was no turning back, all their bridges had been burned. Their only choice was to fight for the freedoms that they held so dear, and which were so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
...to be continued
Pre-Revolution Colonial History
To understand what has gone wrong with our country, and our government we must first understand how our republic was supposed to be governed. It is essential that we understand the reasons that our existing form of government came about. That means looking back to the history of this country.
While parts of America had been colonized previously it wasn't until the arrival of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock that a mass emigration of Europeans began in earnest. Many of these immigrants left their homelands to escape political or religious oppression. Some came to seek opportunities that were denied them at home. Whatever their reasons, they all faced serious challenges and hardships to create a new life here in this land called America.
As their numbers grew, and they faced and overcame many difficulties, the settlers spread out and formed the first thirteen colonies of the United States. While these settlers came here seeking freedom from oppression, they were not entirely free. The English crown still considered them citizens of Britain. The settlers still had to deal with the fact that England was their lawful sovereign.
Being that England ruled over them, they imposed many laws upon the colonies, while denying them representation in Parliament. Among these acts where the Navigation Acts of 1696. These Acts limited all colonial trade to English built vessels. In 1750 Parliament passed the Iron Act, which restricted the growth of the iron industry in the colonies. In 1764 the Parliament passed the Currency Act which prohibited the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed by the Parliament which imposed the first direct tax upon the American colonies, payable directly to England. Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials were to be taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, almanacs, and even playing cards. Also in 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required colonists to house British troops and supply them with food. In 1766 Parliament repealed the Stamp Act and passed the Declaratory Act, stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the colonies. In 1774 Parliament enacted a series of Coercive Acts which virtually ended all form of self-rule by the colonies.
It is interesting to note that if you look a modern history book, the term 'taxation without representation' is mentioned often as the reasoning behind the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence.
Yet, if you read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin you find something entirely different. In 1757 Franklin went to London, where he would stay for many years. It was during this time that the colonies began issuing Colonial Scrip. Colonial scrip was debt free fiat paper money created by our government for the payment of debts public and private.
During his time in London, Franklin was asked by the bank of England how Franklin could account for colonies newfound wealth, Franklin exclaimed, “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called colonial scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
It was at this time that the Parliament passed the currency act of 1764, prohibiting colonial officials from issuing their own money, ordering them to pay future taxes in gold or silver coins.
In his autobiography Franklin states that, “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed.”
He also makes the assertion that, “The Colonies would gladly have borne a little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England had taken away from the Colonies their own money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war.”
Whatever the reasons, the colonies had had enough of British rule. In 1775, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a provincial congress was held in which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began preparations for war. It was at this time that Patrick Henry delivered a very moving speech in which he said,
"Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
On April 19, 1775 about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stood face to face with a British advance guard. A single shot, 'heard around the world' was fired which was the beginning of the American Revolution. One last attempt at peace was attempted in July when the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, to try and achieve a reconciliation with Britain. King George refused to even look at it. All hopes for peace were gone, the colonies now had to fight for their liberty or remain servants to the British Crown.
On July 6, 1775 the Continental Congress issued a Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, in which they detail their reasons for fighting the British. They resolve to '...die free men rather than live as slaves."
One year later, on July the Continental Congress formally adapts the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. In my humble opinion, the opening of the Declaration of Independence is the most eloquent piece of literature ever written by man. In it, Jefferson states,
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
The colonies had just declared themselves independent of England, shots had been fired. There was no turning back, all their bridges had been burned. Their only choice was to fight for the freedoms that they held so dear, and which were so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
...to be continued
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Our Dysfunctional Republic Part I
Our Dysfunctional Republic
Sept. 6, 2007
Part I
These United States of America, three simple words that used to mean something we could be proud of, words that meant so much to so many. If you look at each of them individually, you begin to get an idea of what I am talking about. United; "being made one, in agreement; harmonious", States; "a body of people occupying a definite territory and organized under one government". America is the geographical location of these united states. Combine them and you come up with a body of people, living in America, united and harmonious under a common form of government.
What has happened to this country? Take a look around and you will see we are far from united nor are we harmonious in regards to so many issues. Abortion, religion, gay rights, immigration, gun control, taxes, the War in Iraq, the role of government, and many other issues divide us.
When people go to vote, they find themselves supporting a political candidate based solely upon whether that candidate has an R or a D in front of their name. Blind loyalty to a political party has done away with people no longer taking the time to research how their candidates voted concerning the issues that concern them. Instead, people rely upon 30 second marketing ads to form an opinion that is of such great import to them, and the nation overall. A majority of these ads only smear their opponents without providing any clear cut answers to the problems our country faces. So we continue to stumble through these troubled times, while blind loyalty to political parties, animosity, and even outright hatred of anyone with an opposing view, is tearing our nation asunder. As I said, we are far from united.
I would like to share quick thoughts with you that will be covered later in much greater detail. If any of you have read the Declaration of Independence, I am sure you are familiar with the following.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Read that again...carefully. We seem to have forgotten one simple fact, that our government works for us. We are their employers, and it is we who wield the real power and authority in our representative form of government, not vice versa. Alexander Hamilton once said, "It is not otherwise to be supposed that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.",
Yet that is exactly what is happening. We see our government pass all kinds of legislation that many of us find distasteful and unconstitutional. Yet they seem to do so with impunity and with little regard for the citizenry they were elected to represent.
We live in a representative republic, yet we are no longer represented by those who sit in office. In case you didn't catch that, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands...". According to James Madison "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."
We have a government in which candidates are voted into office to represent the people, not govern over them. They are placed there to represent the will of their constituents strictly according to the Constitution of the United States, and, for local and state representatives, their state constitutions as well. They are paid by us to act on our behalf. Yet how many times have we seen them act like they know what is best for us by passing legislation which exceeds the powers granted them by the Constitution, or goes against the desires of the public?
Think of electing a representative somewhat like a contract. When they take their oath of office, they are agreeing to the terms of that contract. If they run a campaign on promises that the Constitution does not authorize them to undertake, they are committing fraud. Then if they are elected and they proceed with their plans to enact legislation which violates the Constitution they have violated the terms that contract and we have the right to seek legal recourse. In this case, their removal from office based upon breach of said contract.
Former President William Henry Harrison couldn’t have explained that concept better when he said, “The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.” Their power is given to them by us, and that power is clearly defined in the Constitution. Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of the United States, had this to say about that power, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”
It seems our government has forgotten, or chooses to ignore this principle, as they pass law after law that goes beyond, and violates their constitutional authority. It is often argued that times have changed, and so should our government. I hear people say that the Constitution is a living document and should therefore reflect the current needs of the country.
It is true that our country has changed much since the founders wrote the Constitution. It is unlikely they could have foreseen the changes we have undergone. However they allowed for change by creating the amendment process. George Washington plainly stated, “The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
This country has strayed from the course our founding fathers set us upon when they created our system of government. We have forgotten the words of Patrick Henry "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests"
Through our own ignorance and apathy we have allowed our government to overstep its authority and to become our masters. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Overall, the American people are woefully uninformed and misled as to the true functions, and the goings on within our government. We care more about trivial things, such as sports, the lifestyles of celebrities, or reality TV, than we do about the laws that our government is supposedly passing in our behalf. We choose not to put forth the time and effort required to read the text of these laws to see whether they violate the constitution, or if they will infringe upon those liberties spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. Instead we rely upon a 90 second news clip from the some network news anchor to get the truth. It is inconceivable that the network news could explain the ramifications of a 750 page piece of legislation in a mere 90 seconds.
I am just one voice, but I hope to show people, who may be open to the truth, what has gone wrong. I hope to provide you with some very specific examples of how our government is not living up to it’s commitment to represent We the People, and how if we don't wake up soon, our freedoms and liberties will be something left for the history books and it will all be over for the United States of America.
to be continued...
Sept. 6, 2007
Part I
These United States of America, three simple words that used to mean something we could be proud of, words that meant so much to so many. If you look at each of them individually, you begin to get an idea of what I am talking about. United; "being made one, in agreement; harmonious", States; "a body of people occupying a definite territory and organized under one government". America is the geographical location of these united states. Combine them and you come up with a body of people, living in America, united and harmonious under a common form of government.
What has happened to this country? Take a look around and you will see we are far from united nor are we harmonious in regards to so many issues. Abortion, religion, gay rights, immigration, gun control, taxes, the War in Iraq, the role of government, and many other issues divide us.
When people go to vote, they find themselves supporting a political candidate based solely upon whether that candidate has an R or a D in front of their name. Blind loyalty to a political party has done away with people no longer taking the time to research how their candidates voted concerning the issues that concern them. Instead, people rely upon 30 second marketing ads to form an opinion that is of such great import to them, and the nation overall. A majority of these ads only smear their opponents without providing any clear cut answers to the problems our country faces. So we continue to stumble through these troubled times, while blind loyalty to political parties, animosity, and even outright hatred of anyone with an opposing view, is tearing our nation asunder. As I said, we are far from united.
I would like to share quick thoughts with you that will be covered later in much greater detail. If any of you have read the Declaration of Independence, I am sure you are familiar with the following.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Read that again...carefully. We seem to have forgotten one simple fact, that our government works for us. We are their employers, and it is we who wield the real power and authority in our representative form of government, not vice versa. Alexander Hamilton once said, "It is not otherwise to be supposed that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.",
Yet that is exactly what is happening. We see our government pass all kinds of legislation that many of us find distasteful and unconstitutional. Yet they seem to do so with impunity and with little regard for the citizenry they were elected to represent.
We live in a representative republic, yet we are no longer represented by those who sit in office. In case you didn't catch that, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands...". According to James Madison "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."
We have a government in which candidates are voted into office to represent the people, not govern over them. They are placed there to represent the will of their constituents strictly according to the Constitution of the United States, and, for local and state representatives, their state constitutions as well. They are paid by us to act on our behalf. Yet how many times have we seen them act like they know what is best for us by passing legislation which exceeds the powers granted them by the Constitution, or goes against the desires of the public?
Think of electing a representative somewhat like a contract. When they take their oath of office, they are agreeing to the terms of that contract. If they run a campaign on promises that the Constitution does not authorize them to undertake, they are committing fraud. Then if they are elected and they proceed with their plans to enact legislation which violates the Constitution they have violated the terms that contract and we have the right to seek legal recourse. In this case, their removal from office based upon breach of said contract.
Former President William Henry Harrison couldn’t have explained that concept better when he said, “The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.” Their power is given to them by us, and that power is clearly defined in the Constitution. Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of the United States, had this to say about that power, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”
It seems our government has forgotten, or chooses to ignore this principle, as they pass law after law that goes beyond, and violates their constitutional authority. It is often argued that times have changed, and so should our government. I hear people say that the Constitution is a living document and should therefore reflect the current needs of the country.
It is true that our country has changed much since the founders wrote the Constitution. It is unlikely they could have foreseen the changes we have undergone. However they allowed for change by creating the amendment process. George Washington plainly stated, “The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
This country has strayed from the course our founding fathers set us upon when they created our system of government. We have forgotten the words of Patrick Henry "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests"
Through our own ignorance and apathy we have allowed our government to overstep its authority and to become our masters. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Overall, the American people are woefully uninformed and misled as to the true functions, and the goings on within our government. We care more about trivial things, such as sports, the lifestyles of celebrities, or reality TV, than we do about the laws that our government is supposedly passing in our behalf. We choose not to put forth the time and effort required to read the text of these laws to see whether they violate the constitution, or if they will infringe upon those liberties spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. Instead we rely upon a 90 second news clip from the some network news anchor to get the truth. It is inconceivable that the network news could explain the ramifications of a 750 page piece of legislation in a mere 90 seconds.
I am just one voice, but I hope to show people, who may be open to the truth, what has gone wrong. I hope to provide you with some very specific examples of how our government is not living up to it’s commitment to represent We the People, and how if we don't wake up soon, our freedoms and liberties will be something left for the history books and it will all be over for the United States of America.
to be continued...
Monday, September 03, 2007
The North American Union Pt II
In my last article I spoke about how the North American Union is being planned and laid out before our very eyes, yet, for the most part, people remain either oblivious, or unwilling to accept it.
I would like to go a little deeper into the history of these type economic unions, and provide information on what the coming North American Union portends for you as Americans.
Economic Unions such as the North American Union and the European Union have been a goal of many for decades, maybe even longer. According to Share The Worlds Resources, http://www.stwr.net/content/view/717/154/;
"The WTO, IMF and World Bank have been major counterparts in the creation and management of the modern world economy. Their activities are endorsed by economically dominant governments and corporations who favor neoliberal policies and free-market solutions to global finance, trade and poverty reduction."
The goal of these groups is to equalize trade and standards of living for all the people of the world. If that means that the United States has to lower its standard of living so that other countries can raise theirs, so be it.
That concept is very similar to the concept of pure communism, in which the powers that be seek to establish a classless, stateless social organization where the people are all equal and all wealth is shared evenly. While in theory, communism may sound nice and rosy, since there would be no poverty, and everyone would be entitled to the same standard of living, it never works out. There is always someone, or some group, at the very top who controls things. This person or group are the ones who reap the profits and turn the rest of the people into slaves under a system that subverts the working class.
So it is with the concepts of economic unions. There is a small group, small when compared to the overall population of the planet, who control global finances and trade. This groups consists of international banking cartels, specifically the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Their goal was to create a trade organization that controlled trade between all nations.
Starting back in 1948, all the way up to 1994, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (GATT) had control over much of the world trade. The original intention of GATT was to create a third institution to handle the trade side of the international economic cooperation, joining the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations.
This plan was very ambitious, as it extended beyond trade to include rules on employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investments, and other services.
The members of GATT attempted to create this organization in Havana Cuba in 1947, less than a month after GATT was singed. Although the charter was signed it faced difficulties and opposition, especially by the U.S. Congress, (back when the Congress guts), even though the U.S. government had been one of the driving forces behind the agreement.
In 1994 the members of GATT succeeded in pushing through their plan. At the Uruguay Round they signed the Marrakesh Declaration which created the World Trade Organization. The WTO replaced GATT, although an updated GATT still exists as the umbrella for the WTO’s treaty for trade in goods.
All this information comes directly from the World Trade Organizations own webpage at
WTO.
An interesting point to notice is that not one of the Directors-General of GATT have been American. Two have been Swiss, and there has been one British, one Irish, one from New Zealand, one French, and even one from Thailand.
As I hinted upon in my previous article, NAFTA has not been as beneficial to the U.S. and Mexico as originally thought. The question comes to mind then, how effective have trade agreements, including NAFTA, GATT and the WTO been on implementing fair and equal trade, particularly in regards to how it affects workers in the United States.
As of this very moment the U.S. trade deficit stands at $495 billion dollars. That means we buy $495 billion more in foreign goods, than we export to be sold overseas.
There has been a significant loss of white collar manufacturing jobs in the United States. Since 2004 blue collar manufacturing jobs have risen only slightly, up 1.01%, although we are at a post WWII low for this category. White collar manufacturing jobs have dropped by 7.66%.
Source: “Seasonally Adjusted: Manufacturing, All Employees” and “Production Workers,” Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National), Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.. Department of Labor, Dept of Labor Statistics
Since President Bush took office, and proceeded with his Security and Prosperity Partnership, the U.S. economy has lost 3.2 million jobs, including 2.5 in manufacturing. President Bush may just surpass Herbert Hoover as presiding over the largest decline of total employment during his tenure as president.
AFL/CIO Statistics
While all these jobs are being lost by American workers, the Bush administration gives multimillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy, and at the same time supports these lopsided trade policies that encourage offshore outsourcing of, what were once good paying American jobs.
U.S. businesses cannot compete with the huge numbers of low paid workers, who work with no benefits and no workplace safety regulations.
The United States has a total population of just over 302 million people. India, where many of our IT jobs are being outsourced to has a population of over 1 billion, while China has a population of 1.3 billion. Those are both huge pools of low paid workers that our current trade policies are exploiting. While corporate profits may be on the increase, which helps stockholders, it is detrimental in the long run to the American workers who lose their jobs when their companies move production overseas.
In testimony, on July 22, 1999, before the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade the following facts were presented. Testimony
“The growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and pushed workers into other sectors where wages are lower, such as restaurants and health service industries. When I appeared before this committee last spring, I summarized EPI forecasts that the Asia Crisis would lead to the elimination of one million jobs in the U.S., with most of the losses concentrated in the manufacturing sectors of the economy (Scott and Rothstein 1998). These job losses have begun to materialize, despite the continuing boom in the rest of the economy. The U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998, due to the impact of the rising trade deficit.”
“Trade deficits also have a direct impact on wages, especially for non-college educated workers, who make up three-quarters of the U.S. labor force. The other line in Figure 1 shows that the average real wage for U.S. production workers peaked in 1978, declining more or less steadily through 1996. Real wages have begun to increase in the past 3 years. However, the small upturn increased real wages by only 4.5%, not nearly enough to offset a decline of more than 11% since the 1978, nor to return workers to the path of steadily rising wages they experienced from 1950 through 1973.”
“What is responsible for the decline in U.S. wages? Trade is certainly one of the most significant causes, because it hurts workers in several ways. First, the steady growth in our trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. As we showed in another recent EPI report, trade eliminated 2.4 million jobs in the U.S between 1979 and 1994 (Scott, Lee and Schmitt 1997). Growing trade deficits eliminate good jobs and reduce average wages in the economy. Since then, many more jobs have been lost to NAFTA and other sources of our trade problems, including China, and recently, Europe.”
So, if this is what our current trade agreements have wrought for the American worker, do you really think it is in your best interest that the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States continue with their plans for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or more plainly, a North American Union?
Anyone who argues against these trade policies is labeled an isolationist or protectionist. If protectionism refers to policies which protect business and living wages by restricting or regulating trade between nations, I am all for it. Look what has happened under the mantle of ‘free trade.’
People, you had better wake up. There are billions of workers in China and India who would be more than willing to take your job. If you don’t lose it to someone from China or India, consider this. The goal of the SPP, as declared by the document Building a North American Community, lays out plans for the free travel of both goods, and persons between the three participating countries. So I am sure that with the increase in the number of people from south of the border, your company will be able to find someone to do your job for you, at far less than you are paid.
If you think your government is concerned for your well being, you only need look at the history of free trade agreements and you will find they benefit only the companies who profit off the sales of the goods they produce. The workers always get hurt in the form of lost jobs or depreciated wages.
So you can sit back and watch your television shows while this SPP comes to fruition in the form of a North American Union, or you can get off your butts and begin demanding that your elected represent you, not some multinational corporation. The choice is yours, but not for much longer.
I would like to go a little deeper into the history of these type economic unions, and provide information on what the coming North American Union portends for you as Americans.
Economic Unions such as the North American Union and the European Union have been a goal of many for decades, maybe even longer. According to Share The Worlds Resources, http://www.stwr.net/content/view/717/154/;
"The WTO, IMF and World Bank have been major counterparts in the creation and management of the modern world economy. Their activities are endorsed by economically dominant governments and corporations who favor neoliberal policies and free-market solutions to global finance, trade and poverty reduction."
The goal of these groups is to equalize trade and standards of living for all the people of the world. If that means that the United States has to lower its standard of living so that other countries can raise theirs, so be it.
That concept is very similar to the concept of pure communism, in which the powers that be seek to establish a classless, stateless social organization where the people are all equal and all wealth is shared evenly. While in theory, communism may sound nice and rosy, since there would be no poverty, and everyone would be entitled to the same standard of living, it never works out. There is always someone, or some group, at the very top who controls things. This person or group are the ones who reap the profits and turn the rest of the people into slaves under a system that subverts the working class.
So it is with the concepts of economic unions. There is a small group, small when compared to the overall population of the planet, who control global finances and trade. This groups consists of international banking cartels, specifically the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Their goal was to create a trade organization that controlled trade between all nations.
Starting back in 1948, all the way up to 1994, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (GATT) had control over much of the world trade. The original intention of GATT was to create a third institution to handle the trade side of the international economic cooperation, joining the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations.
This plan was very ambitious, as it extended beyond trade to include rules on employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investments, and other services.
The members of GATT attempted to create this organization in Havana Cuba in 1947, less than a month after GATT was singed. Although the charter was signed it faced difficulties and opposition, especially by the U.S. Congress, (back when the Congress guts), even though the U.S. government had been one of the driving forces behind the agreement.
In 1994 the members of GATT succeeded in pushing through their plan. At the Uruguay Round they signed the Marrakesh Declaration which created the World Trade Organization. The WTO replaced GATT, although an updated GATT still exists as the umbrella for the WTO’s treaty for trade in goods.
All this information comes directly from the World Trade Organizations own webpage at
WTO.
An interesting point to notice is that not one of the Directors-General of GATT have been American. Two have been Swiss, and there has been one British, one Irish, one from New Zealand, one French, and even one from Thailand.
As I hinted upon in my previous article, NAFTA has not been as beneficial to the U.S. and Mexico as originally thought. The question comes to mind then, how effective have trade agreements, including NAFTA, GATT and the WTO been on implementing fair and equal trade, particularly in regards to how it affects workers in the United States.
As of this very moment the U.S. trade deficit stands at $495 billion dollars. That means we buy $495 billion more in foreign goods, than we export to be sold overseas.
There has been a significant loss of white collar manufacturing jobs in the United States. Since 2004 blue collar manufacturing jobs have risen only slightly, up 1.01%, although we are at a post WWII low for this category. White collar manufacturing jobs have dropped by 7.66%.
Source: “Seasonally Adjusted: Manufacturing, All Employees” and “Production Workers,” Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National), Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.. Department of Labor, Dept of Labor Statistics
Since President Bush took office, and proceeded with his Security and Prosperity Partnership, the U.S. economy has lost 3.2 million jobs, including 2.5 in manufacturing. President Bush may just surpass Herbert Hoover as presiding over the largest decline of total employment during his tenure as president.
AFL/CIO Statistics
While all these jobs are being lost by American workers, the Bush administration gives multimillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy, and at the same time supports these lopsided trade policies that encourage offshore outsourcing of, what were once good paying American jobs.
U.S. businesses cannot compete with the huge numbers of low paid workers, who work with no benefits and no workplace safety regulations.
The United States has a total population of just over 302 million people. India, where many of our IT jobs are being outsourced to has a population of over 1 billion, while China has a population of 1.3 billion. Those are both huge pools of low paid workers that our current trade policies are exploiting. While corporate profits may be on the increase, which helps stockholders, it is detrimental in the long run to the American workers who lose their jobs when their companies move production overseas.
In testimony, on July 22, 1999, before the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade the following facts were presented. Testimony
“The growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and pushed workers into other sectors where wages are lower, such as restaurants and health service industries. When I appeared before this committee last spring, I summarized EPI forecasts that the Asia Crisis would lead to the elimination of one million jobs in the U.S., with most of the losses concentrated in the manufacturing sectors of the economy (Scott and Rothstein 1998). These job losses have begun to materialize, despite the continuing boom in the rest of the economy. The U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998, due to the impact of the rising trade deficit.”
“Trade deficits also have a direct impact on wages, especially for non-college educated workers, who make up three-quarters of the U.S. labor force. The other line in Figure 1 shows that the average real wage for U.S. production workers peaked in 1978, declining more or less steadily through 1996. Real wages have begun to increase in the past 3 years. However, the small upturn increased real wages by only 4.5%, not nearly enough to offset a decline of more than 11% since the 1978, nor to return workers to the path of steadily rising wages they experienced from 1950 through 1973.”
“What is responsible for the decline in U.S. wages? Trade is certainly one of the most significant causes, because it hurts workers in several ways. First, the steady growth in our trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. As we showed in another recent EPI report, trade eliminated 2.4 million jobs in the U.S between 1979 and 1994 (Scott, Lee and Schmitt 1997). Growing trade deficits eliminate good jobs and reduce average wages in the economy. Since then, many more jobs have been lost to NAFTA and other sources of our trade problems, including China, and recently, Europe.”
So, if this is what our current trade agreements have wrought for the American worker, do you really think it is in your best interest that the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States continue with their plans for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or more plainly, a North American Union?
Anyone who argues against these trade policies is labeled an isolationist or protectionist. If protectionism refers to policies which protect business and living wages by restricting or regulating trade between nations, I am all for it. Look what has happened under the mantle of ‘free trade.’
People, you had better wake up. There are billions of workers in China and India who would be more than willing to take your job. If you don’t lose it to someone from China or India, consider this. The goal of the SPP, as declared by the document Building a North American Community, lays out plans for the free travel of both goods, and persons between the three participating countries. So I am sure that with the increase in the number of people from south of the border, your company will be able to find someone to do your job for you, at far less than you are paid.
If you think your government is concerned for your well being, you only need look at the history of free trade agreements and you will find they benefit only the companies who profit off the sales of the goods they produce. The workers always get hurt in the form of lost jobs or depreciated wages.
So you can sit back and watch your television shows while this SPP comes to fruition in the form of a North American Union, or you can get off your butts and begin demanding that your elected represent you, not some multinational corporation. The choice is yours, but not for much longer.
The North American Union Pt I
If I were to take a survey in a local mall or any other busy shopping center, asking people if they have heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or the North American Union, I would probably get blank stares from most people I ask. I know, because I get the same look when I ask about those topics at work. Few if any have heard of them, and of the few who have, an even smaller percentage know what they are.
Yet when I explain to people that the governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada are working to create a North American Union, very similar to the European Union, I get incredulous looks and am called a conspiracy nut.
Unfortunately, whether or not people believe me, it is happening, and unless the people of this country wake up, it will be to late to stop if from becoming a done deal.
I think when I mention the prospect of a North American Union people they think that the United States is suddenly going to disappear. While it may be true that some groups might want land redistributed, like the Hispanics who believe in the concept of Reconquista, I don't think that is the main goal of combining the three North American countries. It is all about money that is made through trade and the cheapest possible labor to manufacture goods.
To understand the creation of this North American Union it would be best to review the creation of the European Union.
As early as 1950 the European Coal and Steel Community began to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure a lasting peace. The original six founders of this union were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
In 1957 the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community, or the 'Common Market'.
The 1960's saw a good period for the European economies due to the fact that they stopped charging custom duties in regards to trade. They also agreed to joint control over food production.
In 1973 Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom join the E.U. Also during the 70's the E.U. regional policy began transferring huge sums of money to create jobs and infrastructure in poorer areas. The European Parliament also began increasing its influence in E.U. affairs.
In 1987 the Single European Act is signed which provides the basis for a six year program aimed at sorting out the problems with the free-flow of trade across E.U. borders, creating the 'Single Market'.
By 1993 the Single Market is complete comprising the 'four freedoms'. The freedom of: movement of goods, services, people, and money. Also during this period two other treaties were signed, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999.
The Maastricht Treaty had a protocol linked to it that led to the creation of the Euro and introduced the Three Pillars of the European Union; the European Communities Pillar, the Common Foreign Security Policy Pillar, and the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar.
The Amsterdam Treaty, among other things further defined and broadened the common foreign and security policy.
It is interesting to note that although the E.U. is supposedly a single entity with the best interests of all of Europe in mind, they are still beholden to the United Nations. According to the Treaty on European Union, Article 11 the E.U. defines and implements a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security, the objectives which shall be
-to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
If you notice, there were no huge steps taken. The European Union came about voluntarily through a series of trade agreements and treaties between the countries involved. If you look at a map of Europe you don't see a single huge block of land called the European Union. You will still see the individual countries well defined by their original borders. However, they are now governed by a single Parliament that controls trade and other issues.
How does this apply to the concept of a North American Union? Look at what has happened in this country, and what continues to happen.
First we had NAFTA which was initially started by President George Bush, and singed by President Clinton. NAFTA, along with The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation was designed to create a free trade area which consisted of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It was touted as being in the best interests of all three countries.
What has NAFTA actually done? According to several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications like the World Bank's Lessons From NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean, NAFTA's Impact On North America, and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics, most agree that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico although it has not done enough to produce an economic convergence nor to substantially reduce poverty rates in Mexico. If it had been beneficial for Mexico we would not still have the numbers of illegal aliens crossing over into the U.S. for higher paying jobs.
Those reports paint a relatively rosy picture concerning the benefits of NAFTA. However, they fail to cover some important facts. While it should be noted that an increase in manufacturing does not necessarily mean an increase in manufacturing jobs. Also, while the United States total civilian employment rate may have grown by almost 15 million between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000. According to statistics taken from the U.S. Bureau of Labor, from 1994 to 2007 net manufacturing employment declined by over 3.5 million jobs.
Despite NAFTA being touted as beneficial to all countries involved, the average Mexican did not see those benefits. Interest rates have risen from 35% to 59% causing more than $2.5 billion in investments to flee the country. The stock market dropped 24% while hundreds of companies shut down causing a quarter million Mexicans to lose their jobs. Wages in Mexico declined by 40%-50% and the cost of living rose by 80%. Inflation rose by 51% and 20,000 small and medium sized businesses went under due to competition from multinational corporations. As of 1996 over 2.3 million Mexicans have lost their jobs due to NAFTA. NAFTA and Poverty
NAFTA was just the first step in creating a North American Union. Construction of a NAFTA super highway, under the disguise of a Trans Texas Corridor, is next. The TTC is to be a multi use state wide system that will include lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high speed commuter railways, as well as infrastructure for utilities to include, oil, water, gas, and electricity.
This monstrous highway is estimated to take up 584,000 acres of land, much of it taken by eminent domain. Eventually it will complete a massive highway system linking the Mexican Border going up through Texas to Kansas City, where an inland customs port will be set up, and finally traveling all the way to Winnipeg Canada.
Trans Texas Corridor
More on the TTC HERE
The Council On Foreign Relations, CFR, issued a report in 2005 entitled Building A North American Community.
Building a North American Community
The report makes suggestions to the leaders of the governments of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. concerning the creation of a single economic and security community. Remember back to the creation of the European Union? That is very similar to what was created in the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. A common area of trade and security.
In the CFR's report it states that the leaders of all 3 countries 'committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action.'
At that meeting in 2005 President Bush described the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as, '...putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security."
I don't know about you, but the similarities between the creation of the European Union, and what the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States are doing are far to similar to be ignored.
If the people of this country do not wake up to the facts that are happening right before their eyes, they will soon find themselves ruled by a single government that is not obligated to follow the constitution. That means that the personal liberties and freedoms guaranteed to us under that document will become null and void. Basically the United States will remain only as the name found upon a map. We will have lost our national sovereignty and all that goes along with it. It can still be stopped, but people must begin paying attention to what our government is doing, and demand that they do not enter into any further trade, or unification agreements between our three countries. I myself refuse to let it happen without a fight. It is up to you to decide if calling yourself an American means being a citizen of the United States or a member of the North American Union.
Yet when I explain to people that the governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada are working to create a North American Union, very similar to the European Union, I get incredulous looks and am called a conspiracy nut.
Unfortunately, whether or not people believe me, it is happening, and unless the people of this country wake up, it will be to late to stop if from becoming a done deal.
I think when I mention the prospect of a North American Union people they think that the United States is suddenly going to disappear. While it may be true that some groups might want land redistributed, like the Hispanics who believe in the concept of Reconquista, I don't think that is the main goal of combining the three North American countries. It is all about money that is made through trade and the cheapest possible labor to manufacture goods.
To understand the creation of this North American Union it would be best to review the creation of the European Union.
As early as 1950 the European Coal and Steel Community began to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure a lasting peace. The original six founders of this union were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
In 1957 the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community, or the 'Common Market'.
The 1960's saw a good period for the European economies due to the fact that they stopped charging custom duties in regards to trade. They also agreed to joint control over food production.
In 1973 Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom join the E.U. Also during the 70's the E.U. regional policy began transferring huge sums of money to create jobs and infrastructure in poorer areas. The European Parliament also began increasing its influence in E.U. affairs.
In 1987 the Single European Act is signed which provides the basis for a six year program aimed at sorting out the problems with the free-flow of trade across E.U. borders, creating the 'Single Market'.
By 1993 the Single Market is complete comprising the 'four freedoms'. The freedom of: movement of goods, services, people, and money. Also during this period two other treaties were signed, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999.
The Maastricht Treaty had a protocol linked to it that led to the creation of the Euro and introduced the Three Pillars of the European Union; the European Communities Pillar, the Common Foreign Security Policy Pillar, and the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar.
The Amsterdam Treaty, among other things further defined and broadened the common foreign and security policy.
It is interesting to note that although the E.U. is supposedly a single entity with the best interests of all of Europe in mind, they are still beholden to the United Nations. According to the Treaty on European Union, Article 11 the E.U. defines and implements a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security, the objectives which shall be
-to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
If you notice, there were no huge steps taken. The European Union came about voluntarily through a series of trade agreements and treaties between the countries involved. If you look at a map of Europe you don't see a single huge block of land called the European Union. You will still see the individual countries well defined by their original borders. However, they are now governed by a single Parliament that controls trade and other issues.
How does this apply to the concept of a North American Union? Look at what has happened in this country, and what continues to happen.
First we had NAFTA which was initially started by President George Bush, and singed by President Clinton. NAFTA, along with The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation was designed to create a free trade area which consisted of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It was touted as being in the best interests of all three countries.
What has NAFTA actually done? According to several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications like the World Bank's Lessons From NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean, NAFTA's Impact On North America, and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics, most agree that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico although it has not done enough to produce an economic convergence nor to substantially reduce poverty rates in Mexico. If it had been beneficial for Mexico we would not still have the numbers of illegal aliens crossing over into the U.S. for higher paying jobs.
Those reports paint a relatively rosy picture concerning the benefits of NAFTA. However, they fail to cover some important facts. While it should be noted that an increase in manufacturing does not necessarily mean an increase in manufacturing jobs. Also, while the United States total civilian employment rate may have grown by almost 15 million between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000. According to statistics taken from the U.S. Bureau of Labor, from 1994 to 2007 net manufacturing employment declined by over 3.5 million jobs.
Despite NAFTA being touted as beneficial to all countries involved, the average Mexican did not see those benefits. Interest rates have risen from 35% to 59% causing more than $2.5 billion in investments to flee the country. The stock market dropped 24% while hundreds of companies shut down causing a quarter million Mexicans to lose their jobs. Wages in Mexico declined by 40%-50% and the cost of living rose by 80%. Inflation rose by 51% and 20,000 small and medium sized businesses went under due to competition from multinational corporations. As of 1996 over 2.3 million Mexicans have lost their jobs due to NAFTA. NAFTA and Poverty
NAFTA was just the first step in creating a North American Union. Construction of a NAFTA super highway, under the disguise of a Trans Texas Corridor, is next. The TTC is to be a multi use state wide system that will include lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high speed commuter railways, as well as infrastructure for utilities to include, oil, water, gas, and electricity.
This monstrous highway is estimated to take up 584,000 acres of land, much of it taken by eminent domain. Eventually it will complete a massive highway system linking the Mexican Border going up through Texas to Kansas City, where an inland customs port will be set up, and finally traveling all the way to Winnipeg Canada.
Trans Texas Corridor
More on the TTC HERE
The Council On Foreign Relations, CFR, issued a report in 2005 entitled Building A North American Community.
Building a North American Community
The report makes suggestions to the leaders of the governments of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. concerning the creation of a single economic and security community. Remember back to the creation of the European Union? That is very similar to what was created in the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. A common area of trade and security.
In the CFR's report it states that the leaders of all 3 countries 'committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action.'
At that meeting in 2005 President Bush described the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as, '...putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security."
I don't know about you, but the similarities between the creation of the European Union, and what the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States are doing are far to similar to be ignored.
If the people of this country do not wake up to the facts that are happening right before their eyes, they will soon find themselves ruled by a single government that is not obligated to follow the constitution. That means that the personal liberties and freedoms guaranteed to us under that document will become null and void. Basically the United States will remain only as the name found upon a map. We will have lost our national sovereignty and all that goes along with it. It can still be stopped, but people must begin paying attention to what our government is doing, and demand that they do not enter into any further trade, or unification agreements between our three countries. I myself refuse to let it happen without a fight. It is up to you to decide if calling yourself an American means being a citizen of the United States or a member of the North American Union.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
My sentiments
In my humble, ignorant, and naive opinion, this is what it has come down to. Our government, for the most part could give a rats ass about our welfare and unless we are willing to make our voices heard our freedom and liberties will soon be all but gone.
As Patrick Henry once said,"...Give me liberty or give me death."
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Is Your Auto Insurance Paid Up?
Recently the Milpitas Post ran an article concerning a new program that is to begin in California. The article states:
"To improve public safety on the road, the California Highway Patrol, in cooperation with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the California Office of Traffic Safety, has formed a program called Public Awareness of Commercial Trucks. The objective of this statewide campaign is to increase public awareness of commercial vehicles through education and traffic enforcement. The campaign will educate drivers of passenger vehicles on driver safety and rules of the road, and provide specific tips on sharing the road with commercial vehicles. The message of the campaign will be disseminated through educational seminars and literature. In addition to the educational efforts, the CHP will focus enforcement on the primary contributors of collisions between cars and commercial trucks."
While it is commendable that motor vehicle operators become more aware concerning the safe driving habits around big rigs, the timing of this program has me questioning the reasons for instituting it right now.
Could it be possible that they want to prepare the public for what they are going to encounter when they return to work after the Labor Day Weekend?
We have been driving on our roads and highways for many years with these big rigs and we have never had a program to educate us on sharing the roads with commercial vehicles.
Under the terms of NAFTA, the roads and highways of Canada, Mexico and the United States must be made open for commercial vehicles from all three countries so that they can travel freely and deliver freight to their destinations.
The president had proposed a test program to allow one hundred trucking companies full time access to our highways and roads to deliver their goods anywhere in the United States.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request made by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and the nonprofit Public Citizen to halt the program. That gives the go ahead for untold numbers of Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers to begin traveling our roadways.
Of course, according to the president, these trucks, and drivers will be required to meet the same safety standards as our own truckers do.
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in Part 391: Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors, we find the following,
391.11 General qualifications of drivers.
(b) Except as provided in Subpart G of this part, a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he/she —
(b)(2) Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;
Qualifications of Drivers
In addition, these drivers are to undergo a thorough physical examination to determine if they are healthy enough to drive on our roads without presenting a threat to other vehicle operators.
The medial report that examining doctors are required to fill out can be found at;
Medical Report
Of course, these guidelines will be enforced by Mexican officials, and we all know how efficient and full of integrity the Mexican government is, don't we?
What does this mean to you as a driver? This plan is going to flood our highways and streets with drivers who have little to no understanding of the rules of our roads. Our lives will be endangered as rolling torpedoes, driven by foreign drivers, begin filling our already overcrowded highways.
Think about his for a moment. A Peterbilt Model 387 tractor weighs in at 23,000 pounds. Peterbilt Specs. A standard 20-foot long flatbed cargo trailer, empty weight, adds another 8123 pounds. That platform is capable of holding 20 tons of cargo. Trailer Specs. Therefore, we have 34 tons of steel rolling down our highways at 55 miles per hour, driven by people who can barely speak English, and who may or may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs because we are not sure they received a proper and thorough physical exam.
The rules governing the maximum size and weight of vehicles differ among the States in the US. However, since most of the long hauling is done on the interstate system, most of the trucks and trailers made in the US are built to the specifications of the Department of Transportation, which governs the use of the interstate system. I wonder, do our Mexican friends follow the same guidelines as well?
Worried yet? You should be. If not, you might want to go to the following webpage. Big Rig Accident Photos You can get an idea what happens when 34 tons of steel, in the form of a rolling torpedo, has an accident. You do not want to be anywhere near it when it happens, that is all I have to say about that.
Finally, we already have a problem stopping the illegal flow of drugs and human cargo into our country from south of the border. Allowing these trucks access to our roads will only make the control of these problems much more difficult, if not impossible.
This program will be under way as you get into your car or truck and return to work after this Labor Day Weekend. Therefore, when you get on the road you may want to pay very close attention to the big rigs you encounter. Your own life may depend upon it.
"To improve public safety on the road, the California Highway Patrol, in cooperation with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the California Office of Traffic Safety, has formed a program called Public Awareness of Commercial Trucks. The objective of this statewide campaign is to increase public awareness of commercial vehicles through education and traffic enforcement. The campaign will educate drivers of passenger vehicles on driver safety and rules of the road, and provide specific tips on sharing the road with commercial vehicles. The message of the campaign will be disseminated through educational seminars and literature. In addition to the educational efforts, the CHP will focus enforcement on the primary contributors of collisions between cars and commercial trucks."
While it is commendable that motor vehicle operators become more aware concerning the safe driving habits around big rigs, the timing of this program has me questioning the reasons for instituting it right now.
Could it be possible that they want to prepare the public for what they are going to encounter when they return to work after the Labor Day Weekend?
We have been driving on our roads and highways for many years with these big rigs and we have never had a program to educate us on sharing the roads with commercial vehicles.
Under the terms of NAFTA, the roads and highways of Canada, Mexico and the United States must be made open for commercial vehicles from all three countries so that they can travel freely and deliver freight to their destinations.
The president had proposed a test program to allow one hundred trucking companies full time access to our highways and roads to deliver their goods anywhere in the United States.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request made by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and the nonprofit Public Citizen to halt the program. That gives the go ahead for untold numbers of Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers to begin traveling our roadways.
Of course, according to the president, these trucks, and drivers will be required to meet the same safety standards as our own truckers do.
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in Part 391: Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors, we find the following,
391.11 General qualifications of drivers.
(b) Except as provided in Subpart G of this part, a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he/she —
(b)(2) Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;
Qualifications of Drivers
In addition, these drivers are to undergo a thorough physical examination to determine if they are healthy enough to drive on our roads without presenting a threat to other vehicle operators.
The medial report that examining doctors are required to fill out can be found at;
Medical Report
Of course, these guidelines will be enforced by Mexican officials, and we all know how efficient and full of integrity the Mexican government is, don't we?
What does this mean to you as a driver? This plan is going to flood our highways and streets with drivers who have little to no understanding of the rules of our roads. Our lives will be endangered as rolling torpedoes, driven by foreign drivers, begin filling our already overcrowded highways.
Think about his for a moment. A Peterbilt Model 387 tractor weighs in at 23,000 pounds. Peterbilt Specs. A standard 20-foot long flatbed cargo trailer, empty weight, adds another 8123 pounds. That platform is capable of holding 20 tons of cargo. Trailer Specs. Therefore, we have 34 tons of steel rolling down our highways at 55 miles per hour, driven by people who can barely speak English, and who may or may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs because we are not sure they received a proper and thorough physical exam.
The rules governing the maximum size and weight of vehicles differ among the States in the US. However, since most of the long hauling is done on the interstate system, most of the trucks and trailers made in the US are built to the specifications of the Department of Transportation, which governs the use of the interstate system. I wonder, do our Mexican friends follow the same guidelines as well?
Worried yet? You should be. If not, you might want to go to the following webpage. Big Rig Accident Photos You can get an idea what happens when 34 tons of steel, in the form of a rolling torpedo, has an accident. You do not want to be anywhere near it when it happens, that is all I have to say about that.
Finally, we already have a problem stopping the illegal flow of drugs and human cargo into our country from south of the border. Allowing these trucks access to our roads will only make the control of these problems much more difficult, if not impossible.
This program will be under way as you get into your car or truck and return to work after this Labor Day Weekend. Therefore, when you get on the road you may want to pay very close attention to the big rigs you encounter. Your own life may depend upon it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)