It is getting to the point of not saying "can you believe this?". There is so much information on this type of problem that I now believe it.
Linda ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: James Hornaday Jr. <rail...@sbcglobal.net> To: ty...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 8:57:26 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again Tom: Well, for one thing, the trucks and drivers registered in Canada are under comparable restrictions and laws as the US. All of the drivers from Canada (with the possible exception of Quebec) speak English. Most of the French Quebec drivers can speak English as well. They just speak French when they are in Quebec. I seriously doubt the regulations in Mexico are strict enough, and if they were, the corruption in enforcement down there would allow stinky trucks and inadequately trained drivers to go across the border and go anywhere. The amount of nasty stuff coming into the US from Canada is miniscule compared to what's coming across the southern border. I see trucks with Canadian licenses driving on the interstates. About 1 in 100. They don't bother me at all. If you want to stop stuff coming in from Mexico, you'd have to shut down the Kansas City Southern RR at the border. Nobody's complaining (that I'm aware of) about that mode of traffic. I agree this legislation coming out of Washington for allowing Mexican trucking into the full US of A is NOT in our interests. Jim Hornaday ________________________________ From: Tom Martz <t.ma...@gmail.com> To: ty...@googlegroups.com; MLC Google Group <missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 5:05:40 PM Subject: Re: WND - Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again an this differs from Canadian companies how..? And how does this impact the nations highway system or how does it differ from our neighbors to the north....? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Fred B. Ellison <fbelli...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252861 >Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks againObama quietly moves ahead without >congressional approval ________________________________ >Posted: January 18, 2011 >8:39 pm Eastern > > >By Jerome R. Corsi >© 2011 WorldNetDaily > >(TTNews.com) >The Obama administration is preparing once again to allow Mexican trucks to >roam >freely on U.S. roads under the auspices of the North American Free Trade >Agreement, or NAFTA, with or without the approval of Congress. > > >Quietly, the U.S. Department of Transportation has posted on its website a >"Concept Document," specifying a "Phased U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Long Haul >Trucking Proposal" that envisions allowing open access to an unspecified >number >of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads after DOT has time to post in the Federal >Register new rules circulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety >Administration, or FMCSA. > > >The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll >throughout the U.S. is a slap in the face to many Democrats in Congress, >including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who fought hard in 2008 to have language >inserted into legislation that would stop the project out of concerns that >Mexican trucks do not conform to U.S. safety standards. > > >Obama ended Bush-era project >In March 2009, President Obama signed the $410 billion Omnibus Funding Bill >into >law, along with provisions ending the Department of Transportation's Mexican >truck demonstration project. > > >DeFazio's office confirmed to WND that he has requested that Rep. John Duncan >Jr., R-Tenn., the chairman of the House Subcommittee and Transportation, hold >hearings on the proposed Obama administration Mexican truck plans. > > >The DOT's two-page "Concept Document" specifies at the end that the agency >will >periodically report to Congress on Mexican trucks in the U.S. But nothing in >the >document suggests DOT or the FMCSA has any intention of coming to Congress to >seek permission before promulgating rules, initiating procedures to >safety-test >Mexican trucks and open the borders to FMCSA safety-certified Mexican >long-haul >carriers. > > >The "Concept Document" published on the DOT website specifies vaguely, >"Subject >to negotiation with Mexico, the number of carrier and truck participants in >this >first phase of the program will be managed to ensure adequate oversight." > > >The DOT's initial program overview specifies that Mexican trucks allowed into >the U.S. will have to complete successfully a "Pre-Authority Safety Audit," or >PASA, that will include an examination of Mexican commercial drivers' >licenses, >checking Mexican trucks against FMCSA safety requirements and certifying that >Mexican drivers are proficient in English. > >The "Concept Document," however, neglects to give details regarding how >precisely Mexican trucks and drivers will be inspected and certified by >Mexican >or FMCSA field supervisors. > > >Mexico demands trucks in U.S. >TheTrucker.com, a trucking industry magazine, reported last October that a >Mexican official at a Washington luncheon held on Oct. 15 said Mexico would >not >accept another pilot program. > > >"If you put in place a demonstration project similar to what we had, it can >begin, but it can be defunded at any time," said Jose Luis Paz Vega, the head >of >the NAFTA office at the Mexican embassy in Washington, at the Oct.15 luncheon. >"Mexico is not willing to take that anymore. We need a program that is >permanent, that has certainty and complies with NAFTA. And we're not willing >to >accept anything less than that." > > >One day after signing the Omnibus Funding Bill, Obama instructed the office of >the U.S. trade representative to work with Congress, DOT, the State Department >and Mexican officials to come up with legislation to create "a new trucking >project that will meet the legitimate concerns" of Congress and the U.S. under >NAFTA. > > >The current Obama administration proposal appears to fall short of Mexico's >demands. The "phased-in" approvals for Mexican trucks to operate under NAFTA >in >the U.S. appear to resemble the Bush administration's incremental "pilot >program" approach that gave Mexican drivers and rigs the green light to cross >the border into the U.S. without restraints on where they might operate. > > >Yet, by not defining the Mexican truck initiative as a "demonstration" or >""pilot program," DOT may avoid having to come to Congress for the type of >specific program funding the Bush administration was required to request. > > >While the DOT "Concept Document" proposes a phased-in approach, the suggestion >seems to be that Mexican trucks will get U.S. authority to operate in the U.S. >under the Obama proposal on a continuing basis, without any need to evaluate >the >program's success before going to the next threshold of Mexican trucks >acquiring >U.S. operating authority. > > >Angry trucking unions blast Obama >The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll >throughout the U.S. has angered the Teamsters, who supported candidate Obama >in >the 2008 presidential election and the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term >elections. >Obama has not fulfilled his 2008 campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA to >preserve U.S. jobs. > >"With so much focus in Washington on creating jobs, it's a bit shocking that >the >administration would pursue a program that can only rob U.S. drivers of their >jobs," said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator >Independent Drivers Association, or OOIDA. > > >"Until the Mexican government is able to significantly diminish the rampant >crime and violence within its borders, commits to addressing its deteriorated >infrastructure and promulgates regulations that significantly improve its >trucking industry, U.S. truckers will be unable to benefit from the >anticipated >reciprocity," said Spencer, suggesting few U.S. truckers would want to operate >their rigs in Mexico. > > >"If a new cross-border trucking program were implemented in the near future, >U.S. truckers would be forced to forfeit their own economic opportunities >while >companies and drivers from Mexico, free from equivalent regulatory burdens, >take >over the traffic lanes." > >James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, was equally outraged. > >"My union will fight against opening the border to Mexican Trucks," Hoffa told >the Detroit News. "We simply don't believe U.S. taxpayers should pay to let >more >Mexican companies depress American workers' wages. > > >Mexico retaliated with tariffs >In response to ending the Mexican truck demonstration project in March 2009, >Mexico increased tariffs on some 90 U.S. products in a move making clear >Mexico >did not intend to lose the trucking war under NAFTA. > >Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has claimed the Obama administration was >experiencing heavy pressure from U.S. businesses negatively impacted by >Mexico's >tariffs. He told reporters that Mexico's retaliation has had "an enormous >impact." > >"It is really putting a huge economic stress on the producers," he said, >arguing >the tariffs had placed an additional $2.4 billion cost on U.S. exporters. > > >The Obama administration's decision to reignite the Mexican truck controversy >appears to reflect a decision to bow to business interests. > >"If we're going to double exports within five years, we must hold on to export >markets, such as Mexico, where American companies are doing well," U.S. >Chamber >of Commerce President Thomas Donahue told the New York Times, arguing that the >Obama administration should allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. as an >inducement >to Mexico to remove the retaliatory tariffs. > > >Are Mexican trucks safe? >Critics continue to point out that Mexico has no real system of driver >training, >licensing, drug testing, driver physical requirements, safety inspection, >cargo >latching security, hazmat control or brake standards that match U.S. standards. > >Concerns continue that in Mexico compliance with the U.S. Commercial Vehicle >Safety Alliance standards will be met by Mexican inspectors taking bribes, the >typical method used in the country to get around onerous government >regulations. > > >The Mexican truck issue became rancorous during the last two years of the Bush >administration as Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters fought off repeated >efforts by Congress to confine Mexican trucks to a narrow 20-mile commercial >area north of the southern border. > > >WND reported that after the Mexican truck project had begun, an examination of >the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration database revealed hundreds of >safety violations by Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads under the project. > > >WND also reported that in an argumentative Senate hearing in March 2008, then >North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan in tight questioning got Peters to >admit that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as "proficient >in >English" even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish. > > >In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being "arrogant" and in >reckless >disregard of a congressional vote to stop the Mexican trucking demonstration >project by taking funds away. > >As WND reported, opposition in the House was led by Rep. DeFazio, who in >September 2007 accused the Bush administration of having a "stealth plan" to >allow Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads. > > >"This administration (of President George W. Bush) is hell-bent on opening our >borders," DeFazio then said, "but has failed to require that Mexican drivers >and >trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and >trucks." > > >Previously, Peters had argued the wording of the Dorgan amendment did not >prohibit the Transportation Department from stopping a Mexican truck >demonstration project that DOT has already begun, even if the measure >prohibited >DOT from starting any new project. > ________________________________ > > >Read more: Oh no! Here come the Mexican trucks again >http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252861#ixzz1BaR7oLYK > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of >opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of >increasingly >repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens >and >creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” - Harry S. Truman > >"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, >or >the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and >evidence." >- John Adams > >“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually >come >to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can >shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of >the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its >powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and >thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” >“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one >fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to >a >few points and repeat them over and over.” >“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” > >— Paul Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 >to 1945 > >"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless >minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams > >"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by >evil men." - Plato > >"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - >Thomas Jefferson > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and >may >be protected by legal privilege. The information contained herein is for the >sole use of the intended recipient and any disclosure, copying, distribution, >or >reliance on this message or any attachment by unintended recipients is >strictly >prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us >immediately by replying to this email and deleting it from your computer. > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The >Young Conservatives of America" group. >To post to this group, send email to ty...@googlegroups.com. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >tycoa+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/TYCOA?hl=en. > -- "no cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight for it" ~Will Turner~ ~Pirate's of the Caribbean @ World's End~ "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~Goethe www.moliberty.org http://417-political-pundit.blogspot.com The power to tax involves the power to destroy. ~Justice John Marshall~ Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.) A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. ~Justice John Marshall~ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Young Conservatives of America" group. To post to this group, send email to ty...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tycoa+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TYCOA?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Young Conservatives of America" group. To post to this group, send email to ty...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tycoa+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TYCOA?hl=en. -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
