It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Transportation Secretary Says He Wants to 'Coerce People Out of Their Cars'

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Obama's Transportation Secretary Says He Wants to 'Coerce People Out of Their Cars'


www.cnsnews.com

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
This probably is not very surprising news. What is surprising is the unusual candor (or perhaps gall) displayed by this guy. He openly admits that there is a plan to coerce people into taking alternate means of transportation. Is this the job of the government: to dictate how people should transport themselves? How i get from point A to point B should be none of their concern. This is getting ridiculous.


TA

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
This is exactly what Mayor Bloomberg has been doing in NYC. He is removing lanes from major roads, changing traffic patterns all over the city and was pushing that congestion pricing non-sense.

He creates congestion by making Broadway - a two lane street in lower manhatten into one lane, and a three lane street in midtown into a two lane.

He closes parts of time square to traffic, he puts up concrete barriors where there weren't any before to make traffic confusing, and then he say there is too much traffic, we need to make everyone pay $8 to get into the city and $4 to move from one part of manhatten to another.

Its evil and I hope Bloomberg is not re-elected. It doesn't suprise me that the Feds are trying this same thing. They are removing freedoms every day, and the right to travel is actually a consitutitional right.



The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.
law.onecle.com...

I believe that forcing us out of our cars, and "encouraging" us to use other forms of transportation amounts to an infringment on our rights.


As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
www.usconstitution.net...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 





I believe that forcing us out of our cars, and "encouraging" us to use other forms of transportation amounts to an infringment on our rights.


And i believe that you are 100% correct. This is just one more end-run around the Constitution. Of course this is all for our own good, right?


TA



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Yep they all seem to be on the same page.

Our esteemed Mayor Daley's
newest decision is to charge us $1 an hour to park at the lakefront



"People are welcomed and encouraged to take public transportation if they find they don't want to pay parking fees," said Jessica Maxey-Faulkner, park district spokeswoman.


www.chicagobreakingnews.com...

Yeah i'd like to see them take four grandkids, a cooler, blankets, towels, etc to the lake on public transportation, and be safe while doin it


They're trying to force us to take mass transportation, who the hell are they to tell me that i have to wait 30-45 minutes for a bus to finally come and then be packed in like a can of sardines. And these new busses have less seats on them so you can never seem to find a seat. It just stinks !

In these hard times the only thing that some of us can do with our families is to go to the lake for a day of fun, but $1 an hour for parking i guess we won't be doing that anymore either


That man is the worst thing that ever happened to this city


Unfortunately nobody will run against him



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 





Yep they all seem to be on the same page.


There's an agenda here. If it were just a traffic problem in NYC, this wouldn't be considered on a national level. Sounds like Delay is the first of what will probably be all state officials to buckle under. They're going somewhere with this, and "saving the environment" isn't where they're going.


TA



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


I do have to say one thing here and you might think im being a moron for it but its true. These guys passed legislation regarding this whole global warming nonsense, while everyone was angry at the iraq war and other topics of the time that the media fed everyone, this was obviously going to involve people getting taken off road.

Secondly Americans should be wary of Obomination. I am crying wolf for the first time and the last if you get me.





posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


A valid point, but although we consider ourselves individuals, humans are social animals, who require leaders. So yes, it is the job of the government to decide which types of vehicles are safest, and no they don't have the right to tell us which ones we can use. See how confusing his job is? It looks to me like he's trying to address global warming by "coercing people out of their cars." Less cars means less exhaust fumes.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 

I found absolutely nothing moronic in your statement, XXXN3O. You are right on the money: they said "look over here: it's TERRORISM!" and while most people were distracted, they were shoving through BS legislation to further restrict our freedoms, and not just in the name of "saving the earth." Post Starred.



reply to post by SkepticPerhaps
 

Until "global warming" becomes a fact rather than a theory, i don't see the need to pass legislation to prevent it. There's as much evidence against the theory as there is to support it. Until it is 100%, without a doubt, irrefutably proven there is no point in restricting our freedom to prevent it. What we're doing right now is like a child sleeping with the light on to keep the bogey man from getting him.

I believe that "global warming" is just a scare tactic to get people to sanction the confiscation of their rights. You can't bypass the Constitution without the consent of those whom you wish to oppress, and the climate scare is just the premise they need to accomplish that: it can not be proven nor refuted, but just in case, we need to go ahead and strip you of liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness.


TA

edit for grammar









[edit on 27-5-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
They found another way to make money soon the will tax the air you breath,



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticPerhaps
 


He and all the politicians that agree with his plan to "coerce us out of our cars" because of "global warming" can start by coercing themselves out of their cars first. They can all lead by example, take mass transit, better yet ride a bike


It should be mandatory that they all have to do what they try to force upon us beforehand.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


Yeah Daley's got a few agenda's


#1 on his list being to tax us all to high heaven to force us to pay for his precious olympics that he's drooling over


#2 is to force all the working class people out of the city and fill it with only the wealthiest people


#3 is to model our city after London with surviellance cameras on every street corner, taxes for driving downtown, etc

There are a few more on the list, he's just an elitest nutjob



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join