Sunday, August 30, 2009

US Government v. States?

There are many arguments against the government forcing the states and the people to use a particular health care proposal. One that is now just gaining traction is the constitutionality of the government forcing people to accept health care. There are many out there that are making compelling arguments that this administration or any administration is able to force this bill on the people.

I feel the argument the government will use is the commerce clause of the Constitution where the government is allowed to control virtually everything that travels between the states. That means if the medicines, medical utensils, even I suppose ideas come from another state the Feds can control it.

Now, I havebeen studying antitrust laws at work and I believe that these people who are opposing this plan have a point. Under the Sherman and Clayton Acts of the United States code Title 15 nobody is allowed to monopolize or conspire to monopolize any form of industry or trade.

"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....

Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."

I believe that under these points laws have already been broken. I'm sure that this will be challenged in the courts, the federal courts and the SCOTUS will have to make the final decision. We will then find out how "stacking the courts" has worked for this government. It is pretty black & white in both cases, If they find a way to color it grey we will know that the people have lost.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

14, May 2009

Alex Rossi, Europe correspondent

Lorry drivers on European roads face the same dangers of hijack as ships off the coast of Somalia, a new report by the EU's police agency suggests.

Facing a similar threat: lorry drivers in Europe and ships off Somalia Organized crime groups see truckers as "easy pickings", said Europol. The cargoes being driven across the continent are often valuable, easy to sell on and not protected. Attacks against haulage firms in the EU are now costing the industry billions of pounds every year. Truckers are said to be most at risk in eastern European destinations like Romania, Hungary and Poland. A recent survey by the International Road Transport Union shows one in six truck drivers has been attacked in the past five years - and one in five of them has been targeted more than once. Road-related cargo crime threatens the principle of free movement of goods across Europe.

Rob Wainwright, Director of Europol

Almost half of the attacks took place in truck parking areas, with the motive in most being to steal the vehicle and its goods. Europol is now warning drivers across the EU to be more vigilant, saying the criminal gangs - known by truckers as "land pirates" - are well organized. The crews often gather intelligence to track the most profitable cargoes - sometimes trailing a truck for up to 200 miles. Often they will mark the vehicle or break a small hole in a rear light, making them easier to shadow.

"Road-related cargo crime threatens the principle of free movement of goods across Europe," said Europol director Rob Wainwright. He also warned national police forces: "Close co-operation and joint efforts are necessary, otherwise we will not be able to match criminals who are both innovative and cruel in their actions and behaviour." Europol says certain cargoes are more at risk than others. There is a rise, for instance, in thieves targeting lorries carrying nickel and copper. Items like alcohol, cigarettes, computers, brand clothing and prescription drugs are also high on the criminals' list.

Like I say, Labour don’t protect us. We should kick out illegal immigrants and move away from the EU. Do you know that over 75% of our laws are from the EU!!! We must act now and never vote Labour or Liberal! EVER!


I get a lot of info from my trade magazines. This story was borrowed from Fleet Owner, a magazine that I thoroughly enjoy. I included a comment (one of many) that shows the mindset of the lorrie drivers of Europe and also in South Africa. I would think it is the thinking of the remaining conservatives in those countries. Those that actually work for a living.

Let me say that I don't think the lorrie drivers are allowed to arm themselves in defense.

Is this a harbinger of things to come? I remember back in the late 70s, during the Carter debacle there were a lot of truck hijackings. In this new "Carter-like" administration will there be a repeat?

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Another Tax

While perusing one of the many trade magazines of the industry, I ran across this little jewel. Normally the Waste & Recycling News is pretty one-way on the side of the enviros. I applaud their fairness in printing anothers opinion.

Report: Cap-and-trade legislation could result in job loss

April 29 -- Greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation such as that proposed by the Obama administration and under discussion in the House could result in the loss of more than 3 million jobs by 2030, according to a recently released report.
In addition, the legislation could cost the average household $2,100 annually, according to the report compiled on behalf of the Coalition for Affordable American Energy, which receives funding from more than 180 business groups.

The findings are in contrast to a recent EPA estimate that climate legislation could cost each household between $98 and $140 per year.

We have seen the jobs run away from the Obama administration. I'm sure that he thinks that the greenie jobs he intends on creating will eventually make up for the losses. I'm afraid he's mistaken. Whatever jobs he creates in the government sector will have to be paid by the folks in the private sector. The green jobs that are created depend on the ability of the folks to participate in the green fraud.

I say again that while I do support recycling, voluntary waste stream control, and laws and controls against anybody intentionally harming the environment. When the whackos start saying that cows farting and fat people being another cause of global warming they just make udder idiots of themselves. When their outspoken God, Prince algore lives in a mansion that will house twenty families and uses enough energy for that twenty families per year! That proves to me that he doesn't even believe it himself. When the great Messiah Obama jets around like a high school kid joyriding 'cept his joyriding costs about $100k per hour and spews tonnes of the carbon the enviro-freaks hate.

I think I'll never really take global warming seriously. That, of course is the mantra of the lefty.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Illegal Aliens

Speaker of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi, the Frisco Ho, has decided to lay some love on the illegals from other countries. Now I'm guessing that means the Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, MS 13 as well as the illegals from Mexico. It is impossible to separate one from the other. That is why we have immigration laws. SanFran Nan has mental defects that prevent her from understanding this. If the voters in the north of Soviet California would realize this maybe they would again be part of the United States. Fat chance, eh?

I hear that president Obama says he is going to get tougher on border enforcement. Of course he has instructed his Homeland Security Chief to stop enforcing many of the laws that make our country more secure so that is just another of his not meaning what he says for public consumption. Privately he can say, let 'em come on in, before the next vote we'll pass an amnesty bill and I'll get re-elected no matter what." That tells me that he is supporting the drug running and killing by illegals as well.

While we are on that subject. If Obama would really like to control the drugs coming into the United States it would be a not so simple, but doable proposition. All that has to be done is:

1. If you get a check from the government, city, state, or federal you take a pee test and are subject to randoms if the computer chooses your name.

2. If you get a check from a movie studio, recording studio, anyone in the entertainment industry you take a pee test and are subject to randoms if the computer chooses your name.

3. If you get a check from the Media...big one here, you take a pee test and are subject to randoms if the computer chooses your name.

4. And the most critical. If you are a teacher in the public school system you take a pee test and are subject to a random if the computer chooses you.

I'm guessing that the idea is getting across that if you receive compensation in the USA for anything you are subject to drug testing. I don't see this as a further invasion of rights, they've already destroyed that by invading the transportation industry. The ones who say "I don't care, I'm smokin' weed & doin' snort" are just homeless losers. The Salvation Army has a position for them. Where there is no market for drugs there will be no drugs.

Friday, February 27, 2009


This was printed in Waste and Recycling News 2-20-2009 in response to the question....How well do you think the economic stimulus package will work?

When Pres Obama was still Candidate Obama one of the things he ran on was not having the "same failed policies of the last eight years". Now I see that he is putting forth the same "failed policies". If this bill had only work related programs that would have immediate impact, it may be a worthy risk. There is so much social engineering and flatout giveaways to special interests in this that it is very questionable whether it will work. I have my doubts.

I again ask the question. Did no one listen to the man when he was running for president?

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Truck Turbines

In the late seventies, early eighties there were these trucks running up and down the road with huge smokestacks and intakes.I had the oportunity to talk to a driver who operated one of them. He said that the engine was very quiet, got great mileage and had no visible exhaust. We could tell by the way that it ran in the mountains or on the flat it had power beyond anything else on the road. They just kind of faded out as we saw less and less and then kind of just went away.

I hadn't thought of them again until lately in another blog "Trucks That Work" had a post that jogged the ol' pumpkin. I'm now wondering why, with all the concern about saving energy and stopping pollution, the gobment don't throw some money at this. I am seeing they have so much to throw at rich bankers and labor unions they should have a little left over for R&D of an idea whose time has come. Heck Sen John McCain wanted to give a hundred million to someone who could invent a battery.

Today'sadvantages to turbine power are many Who knows what tomorrow could bring.

one-third less burnt fuel than current piston engine technology
30%+ less fuel emissions and greenhouse gasses
fewer nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N2O2) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions
operates on all fuels: hydrocarbon, hydrogen and synthetic
flex fuel and mixed fuels capability
no pistons or valves, and no lube oil, filters or pumps
fewer moving parts means less maintenance
high power-to-weight ratio
air cooled and lightweight: less than 2 lbs. per hp
cold start capability

The cost is compatible to today's diesel engines, about $25k. The horsepower range is fantastic 300hp to 1000hp. I don't know about the reliability, but if this engine does what it is touted to do, there is no other downside to it. I can't even see the algore sky-is-falling freaks being against it.

We now see that pouring corn in the tanks doesn't work. The new bios burn dirtier, are less efficient, and cost more. Well, they have succeeded in driving the cost of food up. I guess that's a success....for them.

Lord Obamamama is going to have to get on the stick. He can no longer coast and say "It's George Bush's fault".

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Gun Control

This has been making the email rounds on the web for some time. As I was reminded by my brother this cannot be published too often. Anybody that tells you that they are passing gun laws, "for the good of the people"....Question their motives. The only reason the government would have for taking your guns is control over you and your life and property.

An interesting note: Australia, after banning guns has not only had an increase in gun deaths, thay have also had an increase in knife deaths. The criminals that run the government are attempting to make it illegal to carry a knife. They may have already. This tells the mugger or the crazed islamo-facist that the law abiding populous is gentled down enough to attack with absolute impunity.

"From my cold dead hands"

"An armed society is a polite society"

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Thursday, January 15, 2009


I have been watching the circus that is Illinois politics for a while now. How can we not? With the very short career of our now president-elect Barack Obama thrown into our lives and the now world famous Gov Rod Blagojevich and the claims of corruption in his administration.

The Governor has also been accused of attempting to sell the vacated Senate seat of The Obama. The Obama has done an internal investigation and concluded absolutely that neither He or His consorts were involved. I'm hoping that if I'm ever charged with a crime that the law will allow me to investigate and clear myself.

Now I don't know much about the corruption charges, probably no more than any average politician does during his career, but I do know that the US Attorney has torpedoed his own case in regards to the appointment of the Senator.

Blagojevich has broken no law in that case!

When Atty Fitzgerald arrested him for shopping the seat he had done nothing except talk about it. His attorney is going to say he was joking. Then he'll ask haven't you ever "pulled a shuck" on somebody. Think "Candid Camera" or "Punk'd". That in my mind totally absolves him of that "crime". What I'm wondering about is, why did atty Fizgerald jump the gun? Was he instructed to? Threatened? I would like to know. I do know that any atty worth a dime would know that it would sink his case by going in before the crime was commited. That is what makes me believe that he was instructed how to proceed. What I can't figure out is the why.

I don't know if The Obama wants him kept in or thrown out.