Today's Thoughts 1/29/12 Understanding Obama
I am just going to pass along a little information today. To try to educate and get beyond what everyone is calling the smoke and mirrors aspect of our President. I am going to ask that you actually look at the information provided before you just pass this off as yet just another nut case claiming that Obama is not a citizen. He is a citizen of the US but that in no way makes him eligible for office of President. To hold that office, the constitution requires that special requirement be held to. We must in our fight to regain our freedoms as a country learn all the things that they have retrained us as a nation not to know. We have a responsibility to not only ourselves but also to future generations to make sure our Constitution remains intact and that our Representatives uphold it to the letter. Here goes.//////
Article II Facts
1. Constitutional Convention -
Alexander Hamilton – “Citizen”
John Jay – “Natural Born Citizen”
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Adopted 9 July 1868 -
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -
4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
5. Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution -
6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -
7.Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011 -
1. Constitutional Convention – “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen":
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –
4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. -
5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -
Click Here to View Citizenship Status
As you can see our past presidents eligible after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 were all born on U.S. soil to Citizen parents.
7. Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011
Then we have the 13 eligibility bills introduced between 2009 and 2011 by Republican’s in their respective state general assemblies. Two made it to a Governor’s desk for signature – New Hampshire’s Governor signed HB1245 into law and Arizona's Governor, who was the Secretary of the State Board of Elections in 2008, vetoed HB295/529 – with the rest dying in committee,
Click Here to View the 13 Eligibility Bills
So there you have the facts of this roaring debate in a nutshell. The people are dismissed as clueless while the congress, the media, the current crop of presidential contenders, the Republican and Democrat Parties and the legal system are all living in a fantasy land. The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door.
SOURCE CREDITS:
1. Constitutional Convention - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
2. The Fourteenth Amendment - Attorney Mario Apuzzo www.Puzo1.blogspot.com
3. Rep. John Bingham - Attorney Leo Donofrio www.NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com
4. Supreme Court Cases - John Charlton www.ThePostEmail.com
5. Attempts to Amend Article II - J.B. Williams www.NewsWithViews.com
6. Citizenship Under Article II - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
7. Thirteen Eligibility” Bills - Art2SuperPAC www.Art2SuperPAC.com
Beef safe out there
If you like Today's Thoughts... be sure to add me as a friend
Jeff Head
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
A Little History Reminder
A Little History Reminder
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.
Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of rosperity
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people…
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET. LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation
BRENDA
IN GOD WE TRUST
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.
Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of rosperity
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people…
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET. LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation
BRENDA
IN GOD WE TRUST
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Why Should We
Today's Thoughts 1/22/12 Why Should We
Riding along the other day, the radio on softly in the background and my mind off somewhere lost in the long ride I was doing, I heard this little blurb come through and it caught my attention. It was from the radio and the person talking had said the phrase, "Soft Tyranny." Being as I had no clue as to the reference as to what he was talking about, I decided to turn up the radio just a bit. From what I could gather in the last minute or two of his time was that our current administration up there in Washington DC was over-regulating us so much as a country that it was actually a form of "soft Tyranny."
Now there is a term I could work within the trucking industry I thought. It must be something like soft porn where they are going to lift up the skirt of Lady Liberty and just molest her just a bit. Just a quick cop a feel you see. Well we all know that they have done much more than just cop a feel to our liberties and they have no intention of stopping at the word soft on any subject. These points were passed years ago I thought as I recalled my journey from running as a renegade trucker into a trucker that fought for drivers to be able to run safe and legal without reprisal. Something else I had realized that this phrase "soft tyranny" was doing was changing the way that not only myself, but also other drivers that had actually turned to running safe and legal were thinking. Now instead of finding more and more drivers turning away from being a renegade, now they are asking, "Why should we?"
Even I ask this from time to time as I watch high dollar freight go by because I cannot run it legal. I mean it is not because it is not able to be run safe or that I cannot physically do it I know. It is because the FMSCA has decided in its infinite wisdom that I am too tired to do it. In addition, they have done this by stacking on us as an industry with regulation after regulation without any regards to actually being able to enforce the rules or any concern as to our being able to survive paying for the regulations. They have indeed created a condition as I see it as, "Soft Tyranny" on our industry. Yes, I still think it is extremely important that we as drivers run safe and legal. That is a giving, but to expect us to be able to survive without tossing the rules aside from time to time the FMCSA itself has made this impossible. They run us in circles driving us to do what we have to do to survive and then they pounce on us and shut us down while they preach to the world about saving them from us killer truck drivers.
A long time ago I was picking up a load from a farmer and as we talked, he said something that has stuck with me through the years. He said, "Truckers and Farmers have one thing in common. We are rate takers not rate makers." That is true to this day. No matter how hard we try to raise the rates, the other side just lets us sit until we have no choice but to run the load for just enough to pay for the fuel hope for better pay on the other end. Paying for all the things that the FMCSA has in mind for us never even enters the calculation. Because they can only regulate one side of this deal, truckers find themselves caught in the middle of a fight for power one side and keeping their money in their pockets on the other side. We sit in the middle and unless we are willing to do what it takes and pray we are not caught, we lose.
With this new attack from the Sleep Apnea crowd once again upon us. The FMCSA is again looking to bend us over our fuel tanks and reach up our arse to see just how big of a golden nugget they can pull out and force us to give to yet another group. If we decide not to comply, then everything we have worked for our whole lives is flushed down the drain The thousands of dollars for our rigs and all the time we sacrificed from our families will be lost. Comply and next week will just find you bent over that same tank with them digging for the next golden nugget from your rear side. They will never stop. Soft tyranny you say, at its least, soft porn, not even. The screwing we are taking as truck drivers dose not even come close to anything the word soft could describe.
So after all the work that I and others have done to make trucking safer and for drivers to be able to run legal, it breaks my heart every time I hear another driver say "Why should we." The thing is that I know is that even I ask this very same question to myself about once a week. Why Should We? They have made this imposable for us to do. They have taking everything from us that they physically can take and it seems that they even want our souls to boot. It has become evident that they want the American trucker completely of the road so that they can bring in drivers from third world countries. They will stop at nothing to shut us down. They want us standing in their welfare lines so that they can gain power. So I find myself waking up this morning asking myself, "why should we?"
That answer has to come from inside of you. I cannot give that to you. You have a family that needs feeding and a roof that needs to be put over their heads. There is college to pay for and retirement to think about and lots more to consider. All the things that any normal person would want in their lives and we as truckers are asked to give them up in the name of safety. It makes no sense to me. If you want the safest driver behind the wheel of a truck but yet they create an environment that only a rat would love living in. Then they complain when driver after driver ask, why should we?
For me that answer is I never want to hear that scream again and then have to explain why to the family. I do have a family though that deserves to eat and feel like they have some sort of security in life. So I try as hard as I can to run as legal as I can, but I still find myself asking after knowing that they are doing everything they can to shut me down, to bring this soft tyranny upon us as truckers, why should I?
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Riding along the other day, the radio on softly in the background and my mind off somewhere lost in the long ride I was doing, I heard this little blurb come through and it caught my attention. It was from the radio and the person talking had said the phrase, "Soft Tyranny." Being as I had no clue as to the reference as to what he was talking about, I decided to turn up the radio just a bit. From what I could gather in the last minute or two of his time was that our current administration up there in Washington DC was over-regulating us so much as a country that it was actually a form of "soft Tyranny."
Now there is a term I could work within the trucking industry I thought. It must be something like soft porn where they are going to lift up the skirt of Lady Liberty and just molest her just a bit. Just a quick cop a feel you see. Well we all know that they have done much more than just cop a feel to our liberties and they have no intention of stopping at the word soft on any subject. These points were passed years ago I thought as I recalled my journey from running as a renegade trucker into a trucker that fought for drivers to be able to run safe and legal without reprisal. Something else I had realized that this phrase "soft tyranny" was doing was changing the way that not only myself, but also other drivers that had actually turned to running safe and legal were thinking. Now instead of finding more and more drivers turning away from being a renegade, now they are asking, "Why should we?"
Even I ask this from time to time as I watch high dollar freight go by because I cannot run it legal. I mean it is not because it is not able to be run safe or that I cannot physically do it I know. It is because the FMSCA has decided in its infinite wisdom that I am too tired to do it. In addition, they have done this by stacking on us as an industry with regulation after regulation without any regards to actually being able to enforce the rules or any concern as to our being able to survive paying for the regulations. They have indeed created a condition as I see it as, "Soft Tyranny" on our industry. Yes, I still think it is extremely important that we as drivers run safe and legal. That is a giving, but to expect us to be able to survive without tossing the rules aside from time to time the FMCSA itself has made this impossible. They run us in circles driving us to do what we have to do to survive and then they pounce on us and shut us down while they preach to the world about saving them from us killer truck drivers.
A long time ago I was picking up a load from a farmer and as we talked, he said something that has stuck with me through the years. He said, "Truckers and Farmers have one thing in common. We are rate takers not rate makers." That is true to this day. No matter how hard we try to raise the rates, the other side just lets us sit until we have no choice but to run the load for just enough to pay for the fuel hope for better pay on the other end. Paying for all the things that the FMCSA has in mind for us never even enters the calculation. Because they can only regulate one side of this deal, truckers find themselves caught in the middle of a fight for power one side and keeping their money in their pockets on the other side. We sit in the middle and unless we are willing to do what it takes and pray we are not caught, we lose.
With this new attack from the Sleep Apnea crowd once again upon us. The FMCSA is again looking to bend us over our fuel tanks and reach up our arse to see just how big of a golden nugget they can pull out and force us to give to yet another group. If we decide not to comply, then everything we have worked for our whole lives is flushed down the drain The thousands of dollars for our rigs and all the time we sacrificed from our families will be lost. Comply and next week will just find you bent over that same tank with them digging for the next golden nugget from your rear side. They will never stop. Soft tyranny you say, at its least, soft porn, not even. The screwing we are taking as truck drivers dose not even come close to anything the word soft could describe.
So after all the work that I and others have done to make trucking safer and for drivers to be able to run legal, it breaks my heart every time I hear another driver say "Why should we." The thing is that I know is that even I ask this very same question to myself about once a week. Why Should We? They have made this imposable for us to do. They have taking everything from us that they physically can take and it seems that they even want our souls to boot. It has become evident that they want the American trucker completely of the road so that they can bring in drivers from third world countries. They will stop at nothing to shut us down. They want us standing in their welfare lines so that they can gain power. So I find myself waking up this morning asking myself, "why should we?"
That answer has to come from inside of you. I cannot give that to you. You have a family that needs feeding and a roof that needs to be put over their heads. There is college to pay for and retirement to think about and lots more to consider. All the things that any normal person would want in their lives and we as truckers are asked to give them up in the name of safety. It makes no sense to me. If you want the safest driver behind the wheel of a truck but yet they create an environment that only a rat would love living in. Then they complain when driver after driver ask, why should we?
For me that answer is I never want to hear that scream again and then have to explain why to the family. I do have a family though that deserves to eat and feel like they have some sort of security in life. So I try as hard as I can to run as legal as I can, but I still find myself asking after knowing that they are doing everything they can to shut me down, to bring this soft tyranny upon us as truckers, why should I?
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Saturday, January 21, 2012
What Newt Did
Today's Thoughts 1/21/12 What Newt Did
That is exactly what needs to be happening right now in this country. No, I have not decided exactly which candidate I will be backing and for a good reason. Because until I seen Newt yank out the testacies of the lily livered Liberal on that stage the other night and stomp on them, I have not seen the type of candidate that I think will be able to regain our sovereignty as a nation. (check out the you tube video) No one to my knowledge is doing to the Socialist that are trying to destroy our Constitution and our Bill of Rights what needs to be done. And that being getting in their face and calling them out for what they are, despicable to say the least, un-American at the most. No sir, if we are going to beat this crowd we are going to have to stop playing patty-cake and get in their face using the same dirty tactics that they have been for years using on us. The good thing about this is that from the Occupy Wall Streeters that Obahma first come out and backed all the way to this moron the other night that went after Newt, the tide has begun to turn. Their tactics are blowing up in their face and we are beginning to get the picture about what it is going to take to win our freedoms back as a country. We are just going to have to get dirty dog mad and take the fight to them.
Here are the plain facts as I see them here. We have to win this election with a President that is going to turn us away from Socialism or we are going to have to do as the framers of our Constitution understood we might have to do one day and replace our government the hard way. That is why they gave us the Second Amendment. It is not there just to have us gawked at it and buy guns to go hunting with. It is there to secure our rights and freedoms as they our forefathers fought and died for them. So that their lives and liberty were not lost in vein as we watch the Socialist in our mist use the Constitution to slowly dissolve the Constitution. No, at this point we need a candidate that is willing to get up in their face and take the fight to them. No more playing Mr. Nice Guy while they kick our butts in the locker rooms with our own tails. What Newt did in my opinion is what needs to be done by every freedom loving American out here on a daily basis. No more letting them beat us down because we are not playing fare. Heck, these boys wrote the book on not playing fare years ago and have been whipping our butts with it ever since.
It's time to stand up for our Nation and what the GOP needs to understand is that we are just plain tired of them handing us candidates to choose from that look and act like they are running to be the next actor in the next Viagra commercial. I do not care who they put up on that stage and parade in front of us. The one thing I know for sure though is that they need to be able to stand up on their own and take the fight to them and shove it where ever it needs to be shoved and for as long as it needs to be shoved there. We are in a fight for our American way of life and our freedoms as we know them; some limp arse is not going to get this job done and we need someone that is willing to take the glove off and stick it to them just as they have been sticking it to this country for years.
So "Kudos" to Newt the other night. He deserves that in the least for showing the way. I hope and I pray that these folks learn from this and start acting as if they have what it is going to take to get the job done. If not, I am afraid that it will be left up to "We The People" to go do it the hard way ourselves.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
That is exactly what needs to be happening right now in this country. No, I have not decided exactly which candidate I will be backing and for a good reason. Because until I seen Newt yank out the testacies of the lily livered Liberal on that stage the other night and stomp on them, I have not seen the type of candidate that I think will be able to regain our sovereignty as a nation. (check out the you tube video) No one to my knowledge is doing to the Socialist that are trying to destroy our Constitution and our Bill of Rights what needs to be done. And that being getting in their face and calling them out for what they are, despicable to say the least, un-American at the most. No sir, if we are going to beat this crowd we are going to have to stop playing patty-cake and get in their face using the same dirty tactics that they have been for years using on us. The good thing about this is that from the Occupy Wall Streeters that Obahma first come out and backed all the way to this moron the other night that went after Newt, the tide has begun to turn. Their tactics are blowing up in their face and we are beginning to get the picture about what it is going to take to win our freedoms back as a country. We are just going to have to get dirty dog mad and take the fight to them.
Here are the plain facts as I see them here. We have to win this election with a President that is going to turn us away from Socialism or we are going to have to do as the framers of our Constitution understood we might have to do one day and replace our government the hard way. That is why they gave us the Second Amendment. It is not there just to have us gawked at it and buy guns to go hunting with. It is there to secure our rights and freedoms as they our forefathers fought and died for them. So that their lives and liberty were not lost in vein as we watch the Socialist in our mist use the Constitution to slowly dissolve the Constitution. No, at this point we need a candidate that is willing to get up in their face and take the fight to them. No more playing Mr. Nice Guy while they kick our butts in the locker rooms with our own tails. What Newt did in my opinion is what needs to be done by every freedom loving American out here on a daily basis. No more letting them beat us down because we are not playing fare. Heck, these boys wrote the book on not playing fare years ago and have been whipping our butts with it ever since.
It's time to stand up for our Nation and what the GOP needs to understand is that we are just plain tired of them handing us candidates to choose from that look and act like they are running to be the next actor in the next Viagra commercial. I do not care who they put up on that stage and parade in front of us. The one thing I know for sure though is that they need to be able to stand up on their own and take the fight to them and shove it where ever it needs to be shoved and for as long as it needs to be shoved there. We are in a fight for our American way of life and our freedoms as we know them; some limp arse is not going to get this job done and we need someone that is willing to take the glove off and stick it to them just as they have been sticking it to this country for years.
So "Kudos" to Newt the other night. He deserves that in the least for showing the way. I hope and I pray that these folks learn from this and start acting as if they have what it is going to take to get the job done. If not, I am afraid that it will be left up to "We The People" to go do it the hard way ourselves.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Monday, January 16, 2012
Politicians On Crack
A Letter To My Leaders
Sir,
I woke up this morning and the first story I looked at was the Democrats claiming that the Republicans were trying to steal the election because they would not let people illegally in this country vote. That is ok though because yesterday the Republicans were going after the Democrats for some equally absurd idea.
Now I as a truck driver have to take a drug test because if I am on drugs while doing my job, I could cause millions of dollars in damage not to mention the number of lives I could take if I wreck my truck while on drugs. I understand this point.
Now with politicians of both parties and the damage that has been done to our nation, trillions in debt, millions of families starving without jobs, Americans being forced to live as government dependents, and our jobs being forced over seas, I submit to you Sir that it is time to start drug-testing politicians. Included in this group should be every elected official from the ground up on every level of government including any person, group or committee that serves the public.
Americans should be free of the drug-addled ideas from certain politicians that can only be the product of a crack-filled mind. America demands in many sectors of our society drug testing to keep us safe from crack heads and now as the state of our country demands it, we demand to be free from crack head politicians.
With all due respect ….
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Sir,
I woke up this morning and the first story I looked at was the Democrats claiming that the Republicans were trying to steal the election because they would not let people illegally in this country vote. That is ok though because yesterday the Republicans were going after the Democrats for some equally absurd idea.
Now I as a truck driver have to take a drug test because if I am on drugs while doing my job, I could cause millions of dollars in damage not to mention the number of lives I could take if I wreck my truck while on drugs. I understand this point.
Now with politicians of both parties and the damage that has been done to our nation, trillions in debt, millions of families starving without jobs, Americans being forced to live as government dependents, and our jobs being forced over seas, I submit to you Sir that it is time to start drug-testing politicians. Included in this group should be every elected official from the ground up on every level of government including any person, group or committee that serves the public.
Americans should be free of the drug-addled ideas from certain politicians that can only be the product of a crack-filled mind. America demands in many sectors of our society drug testing to keep us safe from crack heads and now as the state of our country demands it, we demand to be free from crack head politicians.
With all due respect ….
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
My Non Accident
Today's Thoughts 1/10/12 My Non Accident
Back years ago, after coming home from the principal's office once again, I overheard heard my mom saying to a friend one day, "You can take the boy out of New York, but you can't take the New York out of the boy." Yup that’s was me in a nut shell. I was born just about forty miles north of New York City and even though I moved south to Georgia at an early age, I still have a bit of New York in me. I guess I proved that earlier today after some driver decided he wanted to pretend that I hit his truck where he had parked it in the middle of the driveway.
Everyone knows these drivers. A half empty parking lot and the only place they can find to park is where you have to squeeze within inches of their truck to get in or out of the truck stop. I mean at two in the morning when there is no place to park I can understand, but three in the afternoon with about twenty trucks occupying about a hundred spots, that is just lazy to me.
I had pulled in and took a quick thirty-minute nap after I had started feeling a little on the drowsy side, and was just starting to pull out of my parking spot when today's friend pulled up on the right side of the two truck wide exit and parked his truck. So with a dropped trailer to my left, I had to swing wide to the left to get around the left side of his truck so I could leave. Well with the barrier wall being on the left side of the driveway and his truck on the right side, I ended up not quite making it and had to back up my truck so I could get another swing at it. Long about this time he is getting out of his truck and I happen to mention to him in my friendliest voice what a lazy SOB he was for parking in the middle of the driveway of a half empty parking lot. Would you believe that this made him mad? Go figure.
Anyway, I guess to get even with me, he whips out pen and paper and starts writing down the all the company info on my truck and I ask him why it is that he is doing all that for and he tells me that I just hit his truck. "Hit Your Truck," I say "You're crazy," I told him and then I told him that he was just mad because I called him a lazy SOB for parking in the middle of the driveway. And then folks, it was on.
I come out of my truck with my camera in hand and I start snapping pictures. I have been at this since nineteen eighty and I know how to cover my butt in these types of situations. But I'm mad now and I'm starting to yell as loud as I can yell. "You are just mad because I called you a lazy SOB and you think you are going to make me pay for it." I'm walking back and forth taking picture after picture and I asked him, "If I hit your truck, where are the marks?" There were none, I had just come down out of the North West and I am covered in sand and salt and not a bit of it was disturbed. I am looking at his trailer and not a fresh scratch on it. Still yelling, I want to know where I hit him. But he cannot answer. He just keeps coming back to me, "you hit my truck and that’s an accident" So I say, "Let's call the law" And I did.
Well, I am going off on this character as if I just left New York City yesterday and all the other drivers are just standing around laughing their butts off because my friend as hard as he is trying, cannot find even a single itty-bitty tiny ding anywhere on his truck. And of course I called his bluff and I am now talking to 911. I guess he got a little scared about this time because he decided he needed to call his company and report what was going on. Of course, me not being one to let a good opportunity go to waste, I decided to yell even louder and explain some things to his safety guy from ten feet away over the phone. I again went over what a lazy SOB his driver was for parking in the middle of the driveway of a half empty parking lot and then turning in a false accident report because he got mad when someone called him a lazy SOB. I yelled that there were no marks on either truck and if his driver would park where the rest of us drivers parked, we would not even be having this conversation. On and on I went while I waited for the patrol car to pull into the driveway.
Then all of a sudden, my friend jumps up in his truck and shoots out of the driveway. I chase after him for a bit before I stop and find myself jumping up and down waving my arms wildly and shouting after him, "Hey you lazy SOB, we were in an accident, come back here." But he just keeps snatching gears and then he is gone. I turn to walk back to my truck and I realize that I had a small audience standing there laughing at the way I just went off on this clown. Somehow, I do not think my friend knew just whom he was dealing with today. He thought he had some fresh out of school driver but instead ended up with a thirty year veteran that was not about to let some lazy SOB blow smoke up his skirt.
Anyway, it is not long before I have the deputies laughing and they are trying to decide if they need to be looking for a commercial truck driver that left the scene of a non-accident are not. Reports of course I make sure are coming my way, and of course, I called my company to let them know. Then I do as I always do and here is a trick you might want to use. Always use your own camera to take pictures with instead of theirs. This way you can look over what you took and then delete the ones that make you look bad before you forward them to your company. Just a little trick I learned a few years back. Be sure to write everything down while it is still fresh in your memory like I just did and I have even at times drawn out sketches of skid marks and directions of travel. As I said earlier, I have been doing this for a long time. Rule number one is cover your butt in these situations and more often than not, you will come out ok.
Well, this is my non-accident story for this year I hope. One is enough for me. I did have fun with this guy. I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. One thing for sure though, I was wide-awake when I got back out on that highway after all of that. Guessing I need to find an easier way to wake up though.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Back years ago, after coming home from the principal's office once again, I overheard heard my mom saying to a friend one day, "You can take the boy out of New York, but you can't take the New York out of the boy." Yup that’s was me in a nut shell. I was born just about forty miles north of New York City and even though I moved south to Georgia at an early age, I still have a bit of New York in me. I guess I proved that earlier today after some driver decided he wanted to pretend that I hit his truck where he had parked it in the middle of the driveway.
Everyone knows these drivers. A half empty parking lot and the only place they can find to park is where you have to squeeze within inches of their truck to get in or out of the truck stop. I mean at two in the morning when there is no place to park I can understand, but three in the afternoon with about twenty trucks occupying about a hundred spots, that is just lazy to me.
I had pulled in and took a quick thirty-minute nap after I had started feeling a little on the drowsy side, and was just starting to pull out of my parking spot when today's friend pulled up on the right side of the two truck wide exit and parked his truck. So with a dropped trailer to my left, I had to swing wide to the left to get around the left side of his truck so I could leave. Well with the barrier wall being on the left side of the driveway and his truck on the right side, I ended up not quite making it and had to back up my truck so I could get another swing at it. Long about this time he is getting out of his truck and I happen to mention to him in my friendliest voice what a lazy SOB he was for parking in the middle of the driveway of a half empty parking lot. Would you believe that this made him mad? Go figure.
Anyway, I guess to get even with me, he whips out pen and paper and starts writing down the all the company info on my truck and I ask him why it is that he is doing all that for and he tells me that I just hit his truck. "Hit Your Truck," I say "You're crazy," I told him and then I told him that he was just mad because I called him a lazy SOB for parking in the middle of the driveway. And then folks, it was on.
I come out of my truck with my camera in hand and I start snapping pictures. I have been at this since nineteen eighty and I know how to cover my butt in these types of situations. But I'm mad now and I'm starting to yell as loud as I can yell. "You are just mad because I called you a lazy SOB and you think you are going to make me pay for it." I'm walking back and forth taking picture after picture and I asked him, "If I hit your truck, where are the marks?" There were none, I had just come down out of the North West and I am covered in sand and salt and not a bit of it was disturbed. I am looking at his trailer and not a fresh scratch on it. Still yelling, I want to know where I hit him. But he cannot answer. He just keeps coming back to me, "you hit my truck and that’s an accident" So I say, "Let's call the law" And I did.
Well, I am going off on this character as if I just left New York City yesterday and all the other drivers are just standing around laughing their butts off because my friend as hard as he is trying, cannot find even a single itty-bitty tiny ding anywhere on his truck. And of course I called his bluff and I am now talking to 911. I guess he got a little scared about this time because he decided he needed to call his company and report what was going on. Of course, me not being one to let a good opportunity go to waste, I decided to yell even louder and explain some things to his safety guy from ten feet away over the phone. I again went over what a lazy SOB his driver was for parking in the middle of the driveway of a half empty parking lot and then turning in a false accident report because he got mad when someone called him a lazy SOB. I yelled that there were no marks on either truck and if his driver would park where the rest of us drivers parked, we would not even be having this conversation. On and on I went while I waited for the patrol car to pull into the driveway.
Then all of a sudden, my friend jumps up in his truck and shoots out of the driveway. I chase after him for a bit before I stop and find myself jumping up and down waving my arms wildly and shouting after him, "Hey you lazy SOB, we were in an accident, come back here." But he just keeps snatching gears and then he is gone. I turn to walk back to my truck and I realize that I had a small audience standing there laughing at the way I just went off on this clown. Somehow, I do not think my friend knew just whom he was dealing with today. He thought he had some fresh out of school driver but instead ended up with a thirty year veteran that was not about to let some lazy SOB blow smoke up his skirt.
Anyway, it is not long before I have the deputies laughing and they are trying to decide if they need to be looking for a commercial truck driver that left the scene of a non-accident are not. Reports of course I make sure are coming my way, and of course, I called my company to let them know. Then I do as I always do and here is a trick you might want to use. Always use your own camera to take pictures with instead of theirs. This way you can look over what you took and then delete the ones that make you look bad before you forward them to your company. Just a little trick I learned a few years back. Be sure to write everything down while it is still fresh in your memory like I just did and I have even at times drawn out sketches of skid marks and directions of travel. As I said earlier, I have been doing this for a long time. Rule number one is cover your butt in these situations and more often than not, you will come out ok.
Well, this is my non-accident story for this year I hope. One is enough for me. I did have fun with this guy. I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. One thing for sure though, I was wide-awake when I got back out on that highway after all of that. Guessing I need to find an easier way to wake up though.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Today's Thoughts 1/7/12 Political Crack
Please empty your pockets Sir, then step into the bathroom with no running water, pee in the cup, do not flush; and then leave your sample on the shelf. I have heard this a hundred times. "What happens if I forget because I am used to flushing and I flush by mistake?" I will sometimes ask. "Well then we will have to do it all over because the Federal Government wants to make sure you're not trying to cheat because you're on drugs," the answer comes. Because I'm on drugs, or I might be on drugs. Let me see, that last time I looked into it, less than one percent of the truck drivers tested for drugs had drugs in their system.
I was not a happy camper when drug testing for truck drivers first came out. I mean once again I had to stand up and prove that I was not a killer truck driver before I was allowed to work my job so that I could feed my family. As I raised holy heck about it, I was explained to that the damage that I could cause if I wreck my truck while on drugs could be substantial. I could cause millions in damage not to mention that if I hit a bus full of people or ran into a crowd, who knows how many people I could kill at one shot with my eighty thousand pound big truck. So political correctness won the day and now every non-killer truck driver out there has to pee in a cup from time to time so that we do no harm while on drugs that we were not taking to start with.
Well, that is all well and cool and water under the bridge so to say. But my question today is what group of people are doing more harm to this country with every swipe of the pen then those that are sitting behind government desk from coast to coast? Think about it. These folk must be on crack with some of the things they are coming up with on a daily bases. I really do not care what side of the aisle you are on; both parties are in a race to destroy what is left of our freedoms. Now I do realize that somewhere in that crowd, there are actually some that are trying to do the right thing. Nevertheless, the way they go about it reminds me of a crack addict trying to hit the john while trying to pee. Yes, I seen this one night and it all just ran down his leg while he was trying to light his cigarette. And this is what is happing to our political process, it's just running down our legs.
This is what our government has become. The decisions they make up there in the big government houses make absolutely no sense to the common person and the damage that they can do with the swipe of their government pen way out weighs anything I can do with my big truck. We sit here and watch as they completely go around the Constitution and then justify their decision with a line of BS that only a crack addict could come up with on their best day. I mean come on people, these folks went to Yale and Harvard and a good part of them are Doctors and Lawyers and they can do no better with figuring this out then I can as a lowly truck driver can do. There must be a reason for this and I know what it is. That reason as I see it is because they are on crack and I am not.
Drug test me because of the damage I can cause when I make a bad decision and do my job when on drugs. How about the damage a boatload of politicians can do while on crack trying to figure out what is good for this country. Ever wonder why we are now looking at fifteen trillion in debt. I wonder how much crack they smoked to get us in this predicament. You know those American companies refusing to build plants that will provide Americans with jobs. Wonder how much crack they smoked coming up with regulation after regulation that made it impossible to make a profit here in this country. Let us look at a president that on National TV said that he would bankrupt any industry that he did not like if they tried to build their business in this country. It probably took two trucks to haul the crack that led them to come up with that brilliant idea.
The damage that I can do they tell me. All the truckers over all the years have not even come close to what damage our crack filled politicians have done to this country just in the last ten years. Take note that I am talking about all of them together, not any one group or party. As I see it, things have to change. If I have to pee in a cup to prove that I am of clear mind while I do my job so that I cause no harm while on crack, so be it, life's a beach. The thing is that the state of this country demands that our politicians prove that they are not on crack while making the decisions that can rip apart the lives of well over three hundred million people. The damage that already has been done to this point demands that our politicians be of the clearest mind as they move forward. We can no longer afford to stand for these grand ideas that they come up with while toking on what must be a crack pipe.
Every American in this country stands to lose everything we have and to me that demands that our politicians get off the crack that has led us to where we are today as a nation. And that peeps as I see it, means it is time that our politicians stand up, or sit down as the case may be, and pee in a cup. I am guessing though as I write this last bit, those very politicians are thinking that I must be on crack if I think that they are going to allow themselves to be drug tested. But you know, if we demand it. If we whack whack whack on it like they do to us, they might just find themselves looking at the bottom of a empty pee cup one day. Who knows?
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Please empty your pockets Sir, then step into the bathroom with no running water, pee in the cup, do not flush; and then leave your sample on the shelf. I have heard this a hundred times. "What happens if I forget because I am used to flushing and I flush by mistake?" I will sometimes ask. "Well then we will have to do it all over because the Federal Government wants to make sure you're not trying to cheat because you're on drugs," the answer comes. Because I'm on drugs, or I might be on drugs. Let me see, that last time I looked into it, less than one percent of the truck drivers tested for drugs had drugs in their system.
I was not a happy camper when drug testing for truck drivers first came out. I mean once again I had to stand up and prove that I was not a killer truck driver before I was allowed to work my job so that I could feed my family. As I raised holy heck about it, I was explained to that the damage that I could cause if I wreck my truck while on drugs could be substantial. I could cause millions in damage not to mention that if I hit a bus full of people or ran into a crowd, who knows how many people I could kill at one shot with my eighty thousand pound big truck. So political correctness won the day and now every non-killer truck driver out there has to pee in a cup from time to time so that we do no harm while on drugs that we were not taking to start with.
Well, that is all well and cool and water under the bridge so to say. But my question today is what group of people are doing more harm to this country with every swipe of the pen then those that are sitting behind government desk from coast to coast? Think about it. These folk must be on crack with some of the things they are coming up with on a daily bases. I really do not care what side of the aisle you are on; both parties are in a race to destroy what is left of our freedoms. Now I do realize that somewhere in that crowd, there are actually some that are trying to do the right thing. Nevertheless, the way they go about it reminds me of a crack addict trying to hit the john while trying to pee. Yes, I seen this one night and it all just ran down his leg while he was trying to light his cigarette. And this is what is happing to our political process, it's just running down our legs.
This is what our government has become. The decisions they make up there in the big government houses make absolutely no sense to the common person and the damage that they can do with the swipe of their government pen way out weighs anything I can do with my big truck. We sit here and watch as they completely go around the Constitution and then justify their decision with a line of BS that only a crack addict could come up with on their best day. I mean come on people, these folks went to Yale and Harvard and a good part of them are Doctors and Lawyers and they can do no better with figuring this out then I can as a lowly truck driver can do. There must be a reason for this and I know what it is. That reason as I see it is because they are on crack and I am not.
Drug test me because of the damage I can cause when I make a bad decision and do my job when on drugs. How about the damage a boatload of politicians can do while on crack trying to figure out what is good for this country. Ever wonder why we are now looking at fifteen trillion in debt. I wonder how much crack they smoked to get us in this predicament. You know those American companies refusing to build plants that will provide Americans with jobs. Wonder how much crack they smoked coming up with regulation after regulation that made it impossible to make a profit here in this country. Let us look at a president that on National TV said that he would bankrupt any industry that he did not like if they tried to build their business in this country. It probably took two trucks to haul the crack that led them to come up with that brilliant idea.
The damage that I can do they tell me. All the truckers over all the years have not even come close to what damage our crack filled politicians have done to this country just in the last ten years. Take note that I am talking about all of them together, not any one group or party. As I see it, things have to change. If I have to pee in a cup to prove that I am of clear mind while I do my job so that I cause no harm while on crack, so be it, life's a beach. The thing is that the state of this country demands that our politicians prove that they are not on crack while making the decisions that can rip apart the lives of well over three hundred million people. The damage that already has been done to this point demands that our politicians be of the clearest mind as they move forward. We can no longer afford to stand for these grand ideas that they come up with while toking on what must be a crack pipe.
Every American in this country stands to lose everything we have and to me that demands that our politicians get off the crack that has led us to where we are today as a nation. And that peeps as I see it, means it is time that our politicians stand up, or sit down as the case may be, and pee in a cup. I am guessing though as I write this last bit, those very politicians are thinking that I must be on crack if I think that they are going to allow themselves to be drug tested. But you know, if we demand it. If we whack whack whack on it like they do to us, they might just find themselves looking at the bottom of a empty pee cup one day. Who knows?
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Natural Born Citizen
Today's Thoughts 1/3/12 Natural Born Citizen
I think this is going to kick his butt. Perhaps you have heard of it, this NBC or Natural Born Citizen thing that our President just cannot find a way to put behind him. Georgia is finally going to hear the case and if they rule as the Supreme Court of our nation has ruled not once, not twice, not even three times before; but four times in the past has ruled on. Obahama is not qualified to be the president of the United States. Now I could go into detail but I will just be lazy and do a little copy and paste thing so that you can decide for yourselves. As I see it though, to be a natural born citizen, at the time of your birth, both of your parents have to be a citizen of this country at" the time of your birth". Daddy Obahma has never to this day became a citizen of the United States of America thus leaving our president, not our president. How will history tell this story to future generations? Time will tell. And still to this day, I seem to have problems spelling Obahmma, go figure.
1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
http://runninglegalblues.blogspot.com/
I think this is going to kick his butt. Perhaps you have heard of it, this NBC or Natural Born Citizen thing that our President just cannot find a way to put behind him. Georgia is finally going to hear the case and if they rule as the Supreme Court of our nation has ruled not once, not twice, not even three times before; but four times in the past has ruled on. Obahama is not qualified to be the president of the United States. Now I could go into detail but I will just be lazy and do a little copy and paste thing so that you can decide for yourselves. As I see it though, to be a natural born citizen, at the time of your birth, both of your parents have to be a citizen of this country at" the time of your birth". Daddy Obahma has never to this day became a citizen of the United States of America thus leaving our president, not our president. How will history tell this story to future generations? Time will tell. And still to this day, I seem to have problems spelling Obahmma, go figure.
1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
http://runninglegalblues.blogspot.com/
Monday, January 2, 2012
Justification
Today's Thoughts 1/2/12 Justification
Quite some years ago, I was working a very lucrative contract. The pay was great and the workload was very scarce at best. On a good day, we would actually find ourselves with a load and get a chance to move our trucks and that led to a change of scenery. We would get to go to some other facility and mingle with the crowd over there for a while. While on one of these trips, we found ourself just in time for a free lunch so we grabbed a plate, found us a remote corner of the lunchroom, and started to enjoy our lunch.
While sitting there with my wife, the head guy of the place walks in with the area supervisor, they grab their lunch and sit down at the table next to us. Then within ear shot of us they start having their meeting not caring much if we over heard or not. The jest of it was that if the head guy wanted to keep his job then he was going to have to fill out the proper forms to keep this place open. The higher ups wanted to close it down because as it turned out, it was no longer useful and the people that were actually using it, well they were getting paid good money on their own and were not supposed to be double dipping by drawing support from this location.
So, my wife and I sat there and listened as the area supervisor explained exactly how to fill out the paper work to keep open not only this place but all the jobs it was providing even though it was no longer needed. They sat there and justified their existence beyond anything that was for a fact, truly needed just to keep their jobs. I figure that was no problem though because yours and mine tax dollars paid for that.
Another thing that our tax dollars are paying for is the FMCSA. The questions is, is there a need for them or are they just whacking us with unneeded regulation after unneeded regulation just to justify their jobs? Let us face it, if they actually came out and told the world what we have accomplish as an industry, they would lose half of their funding. If they mentioned the fact that it might be time to sit back and see if the work that they have already accomplished has the effect that thought it would, they would lose the other have of their funding.
The way I see it, these folks at our expense have to hammer on us to justify their jobs. If even for a second they let up and the world sees what is behind the curtain, they will be unable to justify the continued onslaught of overbearing regulations that they must bring upon us to justify their jobs. They cannot for an instant let it out that they are no longer needed as much as they are trying to justify that they are needed. Trust me, to a point we need them. Can you imagine what this industry would do to us without their protection? However, at this point, they have shackled us to the point we cannot breath.
What is needed here by my opinion is a break from new regulations long enough to see what all the new regulations that they just put into effect are going to do. As it is, even if our safety numbers do improve, they have layered us with so many new regulations that no one will be able to tell which one was the one that actually did it as opposed to which one actually hindered the numbers. Then of course, they will never let it be known that the drivers themselves took the lead and made those safety numbers look good despite what the FMCSA did. No, that would never justify their existence, now would it?
I am afraid that the need for them to justify their jobs has the trucking industry by the short hairs. Moreover, it will stay this way until enough of us let them know that we have had enough. Our safety numbers look great and all that can happen by continuing to add more regulation is to bankrupt decent hard working truck driver's right out of the business.
On the other hand, to keep pouncing on us using every little news article as justification to keep their jobs only serves to demoralize the decent drivers out here on the highway. I mean really, just how many times will it take calling a good truck driver a killer truck driver before they really do not give a crap any more. Eventually, no matter how hard that driver tries, they will give up because his country will always look at him as a killer. The FMCSA needs bad numbers out there so they can justify their paychecks. Unfortunately, this works against having safe and legal truckers out on that highway.
It is time peeps to let our elected officials know that the FMCSA can no longer justify their existence off the backs of hard working Americans. We as a industry have taking the lead in highway safety from them and while we may still need them to keep the real world from forcing us out if we demand to run safe and legal, there is simply no justification to keep hammering on us to justify their paychecks.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Quite some years ago, I was working a very lucrative contract. The pay was great and the workload was very scarce at best. On a good day, we would actually find ourselves with a load and get a chance to move our trucks and that led to a change of scenery. We would get to go to some other facility and mingle with the crowd over there for a while. While on one of these trips, we found ourself just in time for a free lunch so we grabbed a plate, found us a remote corner of the lunchroom, and started to enjoy our lunch.
While sitting there with my wife, the head guy of the place walks in with the area supervisor, they grab their lunch and sit down at the table next to us. Then within ear shot of us they start having their meeting not caring much if we over heard or not. The jest of it was that if the head guy wanted to keep his job then he was going to have to fill out the proper forms to keep this place open. The higher ups wanted to close it down because as it turned out, it was no longer useful and the people that were actually using it, well they were getting paid good money on their own and were not supposed to be double dipping by drawing support from this location.
So, my wife and I sat there and listened as the area supervisor explained exactly how to fill out the paper work to keep open not only this place but all the jobs it was providing even though it was no longer needed. They sat there and justified their existence beyond anything that was for a fact, truly needed just to keep their jobs. I figure that was no problem though because yours and mine tax dollars paid for that.
Another thing that our tax dollars are paying for is the FMCSA. The questions is, is there a need for them or are they just whacking us with unneeded regulation after unneeded regulation just to justify their jobs? Let us face it, if they actually came out and told the world what we have accomplish as an industry, they would lose half of their funding. If they mentioned the fact that it might be time to sit back and see if the work that they have already accomplished has the effect that thought it would, they would lose the other have of their funding.
The way I see it, these folks at our expense have to hammer on us to justify their jobs. If even for a second they let up and the world sees what is behind the curtain, they will be unable to justify the continued onslaught of overbearing regulations that they must bring upon us to justify their jobs. They cannot for an instant let it out that they are no longer needed as much as they are trying to justify that they are needed. Trust me, to a point we need them. Can you imagine what this industry would do to us without their protection? However, at this point, they have shackled us to the point we cannot breath.
What is needed here by my opinion is a break from new regulations long enough to see what all the new regulations that they just put into effect are going to do. As it is, even if our safety numbers do improve, they have layered us with so many new regulations that no one will be able to tell which one was the one that actually did it as opposed to which one actually hindered the numbers. Then of course, they will never let it be known that the drivers themselves took the lead and made those safety numbers look good despite what the FMCSA did. No, that would never justify their existence, now would it?
I am afraid that the need for them to justify their jobs has the trucking industry by the short hairs. Moreover, it will stay this way until enough of us let them know that we have had enough. Our safety numbers look great and all that can happen by continuing to add more regulation is to bankrupt decent hard working truck driver's right out of the business.
On the other hand, to keep pouncing on us using every little news article as justification to keep their jobs only serves to demoralize the decent drivers out here on the highway. I mean really, just how many times will it take calling a good truck driver a killer truck driver before they really do not give a crap any more. Eventually, no matter how hard that driver tries, they will give up because his country will always look at him as a killer. The FMCSA needs bad numbers out there so they can justify their paychecks. Unfortunately, this works against having safe and legal truckers out on that highway.
It is time peeps to let our elected officials know that the FMCSA can no longer justify their existence off the backs of hard working Americans. We as a industry have taking the lead in highway safety from them and while we may still need them to keep the real world from forcing us out if we demand to run safe and legal, there is simply no justification to keep hammering on us to justify their paychecks.
Be safe peeps …
Jeff Head.
Be sure to add me as a friend if you like "Today's Thoughts"
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Apathy
Today's Thoughts 1/1/12 Apathy
I keep hearing," What's wrong with our country and how did we get here?" I just cannot escape that comment or that question no matter where I go. It follows me like a plague. When I left Georgia about a week ago, I had a conversation with a friend on the topic. After driving all week and now that I am all the way over in Washington State sitting in a restaurant enjoying a meal, the same conversation. Different places with different faces but still, the same words, "What's wrong with our country and how did we get here?"
For a long time I have had a theory on this. It was back years ago when keeping up with your favorite political team was not very cool that I come to understand it. I could quote the sound bite of the day from whichever politician spoke it. I could tell you what bill was in what house and explain to you how that particular bill would affect our nation as a whole. I could tell you what you could expect as far as what they were doing up there on Capitol Hill and how the play would affect your paycheck. People would look at me as if I had a third eye on my forehead whenever I would turn the conversation to politics.
I always thought is strange though that they could tell me which team won that week or who was the most valuable player. They could tell me who was leading in the NASCAR point standings or how their favorite football team was doing. These things they knew. This was all well and good as for as they were concerned just as long as that big paycheck came in at the end of the week and they could make that payment on their fancy car and big house. They had extra cash to spend on going to baseball games and buying that big screen TV. In short, as I seen it, apathy had set in on their lives. I knew back then that this would one day come back to bite them right in their life style.
What you have to understand here is that the powers that be, in government or in big business, knew and understood this. While most of the masses were lost in their own little worlds, the people at the top could act carte blanche to mold a new world as they saw it. While people that could quote last week's soccer scores were looking at me as if I had a third eye, the powers that be were step by step dismantling the very way of life that made this country great. Piece by piece they distributed our wealth around the world so that now they can line their world with power and money from around the globe. While we as a nation were watching a basketball game on our big screen TV, they were giving our ability to watch that game away to other nations for their own profits.
What can I say? That is how I have seen things for a long time. I could raise holy heck until Hades froze over and not a soul would listen to me back then. Now in today's world, things have changed. People can no longer afford to keep up with the big game the way they used to. They are stuck years into collecting unemployment and welfare and have not had a dime to spend on normal sized TV let alone a big screen TV. And now, in today's world, when I'm sitting wherever it is I'm sitting at, they can quote me the sound bite of the day from their favorite politician. Instead of looking at me as if I have a third eye, they speak to me with enthusiasm about the political fix we find ourselves in as a country.
I find this change all well and good. The Apathy that found them in this situation has really wakened them up to the real world that they now find themselves living. This apathy thing in my opinion has "Awakened a sleeping giant" as the saying goes. The people of this nation will overcome the powers that be that put us in this situation and we will once again be known as the greatest nation in the world. I have complete confidence in this fact. My only question is, will we learn from our mistakes? Or on the other hand, will we just go back to baseball and football and let the powers that be herd us like sheeple once again in our future generations. History will reveal that fact in the centuries to come.
As for today's world, we need to know and understand the dangers of becoming and reaming a apathetic society. We must understand that the more of us that they can make dependent on them, the further into a socialist nation we will become. We must demand to stand on our own two feet without help from them and then ourselves, turn this nation back into the greatest nation on this globe. We the people are the answer. The powers that be need to learn very quickly that us sheeple refuse to allow ourselves to be herded by them any longer.
Have a Happy News peeps.
Jeff Head.
I keep hearing," What's wrong with our country and how did we get here?" I just cannot escape that comment or that question no matter where I go. It follows me like a plague. When I left Georgia about a week ago, I had a conversation with a friend on the topic. After driving all week and now that I am all the way over in Washington State sitting in a restaurant enjoying a meal, the same conversation. Different places with different faces but still, the same words, "What's wrong with our country and how did we get here?"
For a long time I have had a theory on this. It was back years ago when keeping up with your favorite political team was not very cool that I come to understand it. I could quote the sound bite of the day from whichever politician spoke it. I could tell you what bill was in what house and explain to you how that particular bill would affect our nation as a whole. I could tell you what you could expect as far as what they were doing up there on Capitol Hill and how the play would affect your paycheck. People would look at me as if I had a third eye on my forehead whenever I would turn the conversation to politics.
I always thought is strange though that they could tell me which team won that week or who was the most valuable player. They could tell me who was leading in the NASCAR point standings or how their favorite football team was doing. These things they knew. This was all well and good as for as they were concerned just as long as that big paycheck came in at the end of the week and they could make that payment on their fancy car and big house. They had extra cash to spend on going to baseball games and buying that big screen TV. In short, as I seen it, apathy had set in on their lives. I knew back then that this would one day come back to bite them right in their life style.
What you have to understand here is that the powers that be, in government or in big business, knew and understood this. While most of the masses were lost in their own little worlds, the people at the top could act carte blanche to mold a new world as they saw it. While people that could quote last week's soccer scores were looking at me as if I had a third eye, the powers that be were step by step dismantling the very way of life that made this country great. Piece by piece they distributed our wealth around the world so that now they can line their world with power and money from around the globe. While we as a nation were watching a basketball game on our big screen TV, they were giving our ability to watch that game away to other nations for their own profits.
What can I say? That is how I have seen things for a long time. I could raise holy heck until Hades froze over and not a soul would listen to me back then. Now in today's world, things have changed. People can no longer afford to keep up with the big game the way they used to. They are stuck years into collecting unemployment and welfare and have not had a dime to spend on normal sized TV let alone a big screen TV. And now, in today's world, when I'm sitting wherever it is I'm sitting at, they can quote me the sound bite of the day from their favorite politician. Instead of looking at me as if I have a third eye, they speak to me with enthusiasm about the political fix we find ourselves in as a country.
I find this change all well and good. The Apathy that found them in this situation has really wakened them up to the real world that they now find themselves living. This apathy thing in my opinion has "Awakened a sleeping giant" as the saying goes. The people of this nation will overcome the powers that be that put us in this situation and we will once again be known as the greatest nation in the world. I have complete confidence in this fact. My only question is, will we learn from our mistakes? Or on the other hand, will we just go back to baseball and football and let the powers that be herd us like sheeple once again in our future generations. History will reveal that fact in the centuries to come.
As for today's world, we need to know and understand the dangers of becoming and reaming a apathetic society. We must understand that the more of us that they can make dependent on them, the further into a socialist nation we will become. We must demand to stand on our own two feet without help from them and then ourselves, turn this nation back into the greatest nation on this globe. We the people are the answer. The powers that be need to learn very quickly that us sheeple refuse to allow ourselves to be herded by them any longer.
Have a Happy News peeps.
Jeff Head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)