This is an interesting read: FMCSA 2011-2016 Strategic Plan

Yeah, sounds great on paper doesn't it. Let's all buy into another round of gubermint bulls hit.

It be easier to just cut the FMCSA a check every quarter, think "dues", in exchange they leave the good guys alone.

 

Sceptical is the operative word..

 

Sad part is that this is the second one since they implemented the plan in 2000 and it is something that they have worked on for several long years.

It has been the goal of the entire idiots sent to Washington. They want to justify their position.

 

Thank you. For some time the Constitution has been under attack. "It was written by a bunch of old rich white guys and they couldn't possibly know how much things would change," is about all a lot a folks know about it today. As a result, there are lots of distortions masquerading as fact.

Separation of Church and State for example. What does the Constitution really say about that? Many think that it means you can't put up Christmas decorations in a government office, or your school board or city council can't say a prayer.

What it really says is there won't be an official State Religion. That's it. Nothing about having the right not to hear or see someone else practicing their religion of choice. If you have children, you might want to take a moment to let them know what the Constitution really says about this. They probably won't hear it in school.

This is just one of the many distortions of fact that is widely believed today. The reason is "we" trust others to tell us what is or isn't in Our Constitution.

As responsible citizens, we have a duty to educate ourselves and our families about the Constitution. A lie gone unchallenged becomes the truth. And if you don't know the truth, you are then open to believe just about anything.

Recent history has plenty of examples. If you scratch your head and wonder how things got out of hand in Germany in the thirties and forties, it really isn't a mystery. A small group of people told lies and went unchallenged. This small group consistently said one thing while doing something entirely different. We can see the results in hindsight. By the way, they didn't "invent" the concept. It was borrowed from a group that used it with great success farther east and refined it even more.

So, instead of whining about the way things are, here is a challenge. Instead of depending on hearsay, soundbites and fifteen second video clips for your opinions, go to the sources. Get the facts before deciding your opinions. When you find the facts don't agree, challenge. Including me and this post. Don't take my word for anything you read here. If you find I'm wrong and disagree, challenge me with the facts.

 

That's the problem with most (if not all) regulations - they're written to address the lowest common denominator, not the individuals that actually do a the right thing, but the problem children who would screw anything they did up.

 

Very well said, CraigK49.....

 

Since there can be no establishment of a state religion, no state(read people's money) funds should be spent promoting or endorsing any religion. Since classrooms, council meetings, open court, city halls, Congress, The Supreme Court, are all public business done with public funds no religion should be introduced.

By placing religious relics on the publics dime your promoting a specific religion. That is quite unconstitutional by your own admission.


Now yes if the jews wish to celebrate the crucifixon of a heritic on their lawn, or the christiani wish to celebrate the greatest farce on man to date in their private function so be it. Just as I have every right to explain the irrational thought process they subvert themselves to, well that and to point and laugh at their lunacy.


Enforcing highway safety( the publics highways) is one of the few forms government should take. You have no constitutional right to a highway, nor of using them. You are granted permission or privelege so long as you abide the conditions set forth by the public through their representatives the US Government when it comes to Interstate Commerce so freemen of one state can have minimal standards maintained by companies from other states, with the caveat that they are minimal and states if they so choose can enforce a higher standard.



The comparison to Nazi's is a non-starter argument. It is a non-starter by the simple fact you must apply for permission to utilize these roads, and can quite simply avoid everything laid out in that plan by not applying.