Frank Reichert wrote:> You replied:> > Claims doesn't mean substantiated. I'm
not really aware of a huge > > increase in the number of police or of
police-like agencies, although > > there has been an increase in the number of
state troopers on PA > > highways, which seems to have more to do with a desire
to hand out more > > traffic tickets :( than anything else, AFAIK. Perhaps you
could explain > > what agencies (besides the Forest Service, which you
mentioned) you have > > in mind.> > I suggest, it is the centralization of
police power under the > umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security...
everything > from the U.S. Forest Service to the local sheriff's office are >
being constantly brought into this mix. I fear, as do others, we > are
approaching a national police force.
Fear is not evidence. I see no signs of what you are talking about.
>To answer your > question, the tentacles of this monster seems to be flowing
>into > all government agencies. The Boundary County Sheriffs Office, > for
>example, are now attending routine meetings with law > enforcement agencies in
>Canada!
I'm guessing Boundary County is on the border with Canada. Given that, it seems
reasonable that sheriffs in neighboring counties would meet even if they are in
different states or different countries. Criminals cross borders and I don't
see a problem in neighboring law enforcement officials giving each other a
heads up about what may be coming their way.> > To which you replied:> > Is it
the war on terror that you think is fictitious or the mentality? > > In whom
are these anxieties being spawned?> > The war is fictitious, and the mentality,
as usual, is a > mentality of fear. It reminds me of the fear mongers who
You don't believe we're fighting Islamic terrorists or that the Islamists are
trying to carry out more terrorist activities in the U.S.?
> constantly drove home the horrors during the cold war with the > former
> Soviet Union... that lasted several decades. The idea it > seems has never
> changed very much. We live under constant fear. > During the cold war we had
> this menace of Communism which turned > out to be a situation that self
> imploded upon itself largely due > mainly to economic realities that
> centralized economies don't > work in the absence of a free market.
Communism was and is a pretty serious threat. The Soviet Union imploded because
its defeat in Afghanistan (thanks to Reagan arming the Mujahadeen) both
bankrupted it and destroyed its aura of invincibility. Add to that the attempt
to keep up with SDI and you have the reasons for the economic factors that led
to the collapse. Take away those - e.g. if Mondale had won in 1984 or that
mamzer Carter in 1980 - and the Soviet Union might still be around today. As it
is, Czar Vladimir seems determined to resuscitate it.> > To give up your
liberty, most Americans appear to always be > willing and ready to do so when
they are under the constraint of > abject fear of an enemy that it out to
destroy them, for whatever > weight that might actually be is usually
exaggerated a great deal > by those who seek to install a centralized police
state and > dictate every measure of our lives, at the expense always of our >
freedom to make our own choices. But it works. It has worked, > and it still
works, which is why we have a federal centralized > police authority taking
shape under the Department of Homeland > Security today.
I think you overstate the level of fear, the number of people afraid, and the
willingness to give up liberty.
> To which, you replied:> > What have you heard? The rule was postponed because
> of the total > > ineptness of the State Dept. in renewing/issuing passports.
> Even the > > rush orders are taking 3 months (great argument against govt.
> healthcase > > if you think about it). Your own experience detailed below
> suggests you > > at least had no real problem.> > Well, what I heard, is
> exactly again, what I just heard again > tonight on ABC Nightly News with
> Charles Gibens. We DO need a > passport, effective today, to travel to Canada
> or Mexico. > Nothing exaggerated, by me, to that point anyway. So the problem
> > I had just a few days ago... tomorrow, I probably would if I ran > up to
> Canada with an expired Passport.... hugh grin!!! Wonder > what they would do
> now? Tell me I have to stay in Canada > forever? Wonder who would pay for all
> of that when I explain to > them I only have $20 (and that is Canadian) in my
> wallet???? > Most likely I would be in detention at the boarder post while >
> they sort out the details on what they're going to do with me.
The passport requirement is a nuisance of course, but not exactly a significant
decrease in liberty. Instead of one govt. issued document, you need another. An
annoyance and minor added expense to be sure, but that's all.> > To which
again, you replied:> > Well, other than reminding me that I should get around
to renewing my > > passport, which expired 12 years ago, I'm not sure the
purpose of this > > anecdote.> > Several purposes honestly. Control over
American citizens > (terrorists probably have U.S. Passports or other "proper"
> documents anyway.). Why exactly do we even need passports > suddenly to
travel to Canada or Mexico when neither of those > governments require
passports for US citizens to visit their > country... the other anecdote.?
I have little doubt that terrorists can get passports and visas. If the threat
to liberty from a "tamper-proof" national ID card weren't serious, I would
laugh at anyone who proposed a "tamper-proof" ID card for employment
verification or anything else. (Yes, I know Giuliani has proposed that; it's
one of the points against him.)> > Anyway Doug, this flies in the face of the
current trendy thing > to create a North American Union (NAU) currently under
discussion > and possible not to far out in our future. It this monster >
emerges, which it may, then obviously the Passport problem now > surfacing is
only a distraction to further use Passports as a > tracking mechanism to
monitor U.S. citizens. Because obviously > under a NAU, Passports would
suddenly become unnecessary. So, > why are the so necessary as of today?
Well, maybe the NAU isn't a done deal.> [Discussion of what's on and off topic
and U.S. imports and exports snipped, since it was covered elsewhere by Robert
and Bill.]
> Then, you wrote:> > As for OPEC, from time to time they threaten to > > move
> off the dollar; they did so in the late 1970s and again in the > > mid-late
> '80s. Some day, perhaps they will. Then the dollar will recover > > and
> they'll realize they made a mistake.> > So, in your opinion [REALLY I WANT TO
> KNOW] how can the U.S. > dollar recover from this? Yes, we're sitting on the
> world's > larges petroleum reserve on the planet. Yes, we could make hard >
> choices and exploit our obvious technological expertise > anywhere... BUT...
> outside this propensity to commit suicide and > fail by our own design, how
> do YOU suspect we can come around and > put all of this together and still
> compete in a global economy?
Add more nuclear power plants and allow drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico
and our oil import bills will drop enough to remove a large chunk of the trade
deficit. Cut taxes and reduce regulations to make our products more
competitive.> > All I am saying here, is if, and more than likely when, the
U.S. > dollar finally is no longer the instrument of choice in this > global
market, how do you believe we can ever recover without a > revolution of sorts
in our own thinking and a radical > transformation to reform the way we think?
These things are cyclical to a degree. The dollar's in a down cycle at the
moment. > > Then you wrote:> > BTW, the Canadian dollar hit parity with the
U.S. in 1974; I remember > > because I went to Niagara Falls with my camp and
was stunned. IIRC, the > > US dollar made a comeback in 1975 and the two
haven't been close until now.> > My guess. It probably ain't going to happen
this time around. > By the way, that was 33 years ago, by my math. Global
economic > events weren't all that globalized back then as they are now. > The
world has changed a lot in the last 33 years.
True, but that doesn't dictate exchange rate changes one way or the other.[snip]
> As far as China is concerned... that is going to be huge tiger, > as I knew
> it would be if ever that tiger was let out of its cage. > It's fascinating,
> isn't it, that so-called "Communist" China is > becoming one of the most
> capitalist nations on the face of the > earth? I knew that was only a matter
> of time 30 years ago. I > just knew that. I watched Chinese capitalists in
> Hong Kong, > Macau and Singapore. Even back then, I knew this tiger was going
> > to emerge and I didn't know then, or even today, how we are going > to deal
> with that except on an equal free-trade market.
China is not capitalist, nor does it engage in free trade. China is a communist
country moving towards fascism/oligarchy. There are few wealthy people in China
who are not first degree relatives of Communist Party officials. And those few
are second degree relatives.
Doug
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
